





































Copyright hi 0 



COPSRJGHT DEPUSm 








































































' 
















































J . 

History of the Church 

of the 


United Brethren in Christ 


By 

A. W. DRURY 



THE OTTERBEIN PRESS 
DAYTON, OHIO 
1924 




13 )( 
,x>% 


i 


Qj 


Copyright 1924 

United Brethren Publishing House 
Dayton, Ohio 


SEP 12 1924 


©Cl A 801798 :- 





PREFACE 


c< 


/^Tr^lORTY-TWO years ago, the writer was asked by the 
book committee of the United Brethren Church to 
/ bring the history of the Church down to that time, 
w/ His answer was, “Whatever may come afterward, the 
Life of Otterbein first.” This was in 1882, and the Life of Ot- 
terbein appeared in 1884. After this extended interval, it is 
proposed to make the volume named, largely as it first ap¬ 
peared, the first part of a present-day history of the Church. 

The making of a biography the first part of a history re¬ 
quires little effort at justification, for, as Emerson says, “an 
institution is the lengthened shadow of one man.” We may 
well say that the Christian church as a whole is the lengthened 
shadow of Jesus. It will be noticed, too, that the volume 
named, while presenting Otterbein as holding the central 
position, gives a proportionate place to his like-minded co¬ 
laborers. Thus, in this large sense, biography grows into 
history. 

But why should not this biographical material be recast 
and new elements included? At the time when the Life of 
Otterbein was written, a number of new sources had become 
available, and various advantageous conditions had come to 
exist. The writer visited all of the places where Otterbein 
served as pastor, and also consulted libraries in Harrisburg, 
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, and New York. Almost 
no new materials have become available in recent years. So, 
following the judgment of trusted advisors, it has been deemed 
best to allow the text of the Life of Otterbein to remain for the 
most part unchanged. While the changes made may not be 
very noticeable, the revision has been thorough and will add 
much to historical accuracy. In cases where a modification of 
judgment has been reached or additional facts have become 
available, the same are given in the proper place. The writer 
may add, that, as through the years occasion has called him to 
face anew the character and historic significance of Otterbein, 
the impression has been deepened and further confirmed that 
Otterbein truly had those great and special characteristics so 
manifest and challenging in those whom the judgment of man¬ 
kind recognizes as the special instruments of Providence. 
The world needs men who, like Paul, have not need or in¬ 
clination to confer with flesh and blood. Such was Otterbein. 




4 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


In recent years, the writer has been asked a number of 
times by authorities of the Church to prepare a history of the 
Church, but has definitely and as he thought finally declined, 
and largely for the reason that he has written so much on 
various parts and phases of the history of the Church in 
books, pamphlets, and contributed articles, both alone and in 
connection with others, that he doubted whether he had any 
new contribution to make. To compile and to repeat and to 
make changes for the sake of changes are not conducive to the 
highest interest. To the difficulty named is added the inherent 
difficulty of planning and producing such a history as would 
meet the desires and needs of the Church, especially as the 
desires and needs are sure to be conflicting or competing. 

While the writer entered upon his work by appointment, 
the history will not be found to be merely official, colorless, 
and bloodless. His maternal great-grandfather's house in 
Augusta county, Virginia, was a preaching place for the co¬ 
laborers of Otterbein. His grandfather, with his grandmother, 
and her sister, three in all, formed the first class of United 
Brethren in a new settlement in Indiana. 

Again, his grandfather and others of his family formed a 
class on the Iowa frontier and contributed to the building of 
the first church house in the township, if not in the county, 
where they located. By attendance at the Theological Sem¬ 
inary at Dayton, by his presence at important conferences 
and conventions of the Church beginning with the General 
Conference of 1877, and by close contact with the Church in 
all of the years since, he has met nearly all of the Church 
leaders of recent times, and has the satisfaction and advantage 
of having met many of the leaders of an earlier day. 

It is said that the two eyes of history are geography and 
chronology. Without these, history is a blind study. As we 
study the history of the Church, we should have some patience 
with ourselves and our task as we seek to construct to our¬ 
selves the local conditions and the times immediately involved. 
Instead of standing in our day and asking first what past 
events mean to us, let us rather put ourselves in company with 
the past and study events in the light of their first dawning. 
Thus, and only thus, shall the lessons coming to us be sure and 
valuable. In gaining a proper perspective, some incidents or 
references are given, not for any special significance that they 
have in themselves, but because they are typical and lead us 
into the atmosphere of the particular times. Likewise, some 
conditions described, which, under the light and standards of 
our times, may seem wanting in dignity or rectitude, may cor- 


PREFACE 


5 


rect a tendency toward undue laudation of the past, and at 
the same time disclose to us qualities of real worth and promise 
struggling to assert themselves amid a hindering environment 
of custom and unawakened thought. 

Individual churches, rural and city, in their beginnings 
and concrete conditions, as well as the wider extension of the 
work of the Church, to be studied by conferences or States, 
and likewise the different departments of church work, must 
receive attention. Extracts more or less extended, taken from 
minutes and various other sources, have not been included to 
save labor or multiply pages, but to give the reader an oppor¬ 
tunity to know first-hand the materials out of which the narra¬ 
tive is woven; in a word, to afford eyepieces through which the 
reader may look down into the times and into the hearts of the 
builders and fashioners of events. It would be too pretentious 
for the writer to attempt a “documentary history” such as in 
particular lines, others have written, yet the advantage of 
some features of such a history will be apparent, at least to 
some persons. 

In giving accounts of the same things, in different forms 
and connections, some repetitions are almost unavoidable. 
Yet, such repetitions may make an advantageous representa¬ 
tion immediately to the eye, and require no more space than 
would a cross reference, except in Part I. As in the History of 
Methodists, by J. M. Buckley, “academic and honorary titles 
are conspicuous by their absence,” even in cases in which their 
use would seem most appropriate and convenient. The reader 
will find dates sprinkled in quite freely. At times, or to some 
persons, these will be of service. To those not interested in 
them, they may prove but a slight impediment. The writer is 
fully aware that in the attempt to make facts, rather than opin¬ 
ion or comment, the frame work and substance of history, the 
peril of numerous errors, in minor, if not also in larger matters, 
is incurred. 

Not only are church organizations, forms of church work, 
and events in general especially to be recognized, but persons 
must hold a large share of interest. At this point, the task of a 
narrator is most difficult. Many noble and efficient workers 
leave little for the historian to record. They have their im¬ 
mortality, so far as the present stage of existence is concerned, 
in the transformed lives of others and in a transformed world. 
The limits of a book and the wearying monotony of merely 
formal reference may well limit personal sketches largely to 
representative leaders. 


6 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


This preface may be extended to include references to 
sources, especially as some comments or explanations may, in 
certain connections, be proper and helpful. 

Of the publications of the Reformed Church in the United 
States, the Life of Schlatter, by Harbaugh, the Fathers of the 
Reformed Church, by Harbaugh and Heisler, and the histories 
of that church, by Dubbs and Good, are the main authorities. 

The Methodist histories by Bangs, Stevens, and Buckley 
afford interesting and helpful parallels. The volume contain¬ 
ing the Reminiscences of Henry Boehm also has value. 

Aside from general articles on the Mennonites, there is 
material, pertinent especially in regard to Martin Boehm, in 
the book, The Mennonites and Their Accusers, by John E. 
Funk. 

Taking up somewhat closely the sources within the United 
Brethren Church, the first to be named is the historical sketch 
given in the Discipline published in 1816, and representing the 
first General Conference, which met the previous year. This 
piece of almost contemporaneous history has appeared with 
only slight changes in every subsequent Discipline. 

The periodical publications of the Church, especially the 
Religious Telescope, first appearing in 1834, the Unity mag¬ 
azine, published from 1853 to 1859, and the German periodicals, 
together with the minutes of General and annual con¬ 
ference sessions, and the successive issues of the Year Book, 
are the largest source for the history of the Church. 

The first account of the Church given in book form was 
included in the History of All Denominations (He passa Ek- 
klesia), by I. D. Rupp, published in 1844. The account of the 
United Brethren Church was furnished by William Hanby, 
with a supplement by Henry Spayth. It has special interest as 
being the first formal attempt to give the history of the Church. 

The writers just named were the authors of a History of 
the United Brethren in Christ, published in 1851, generally 
known as Spayth’s History of the Church, though Hanby gave, 
under the name of Annals, the important events by years, 
beginning with 1825. Spayth did not believe in giving an 
account of living men, and such accounts as appeared in the 
history were written in part by John Lawrence, the author 
of a later history of the Church. Spayth was a co-laborer with 
the Fathers of the Church, and himself was fully imbued with 
their spirit. His History is indispensable in reaching a proper 
knowledge of the founding and early progress of the Church. 
And yet it must be recognized that he was not free from the 


PREFACE 


7 


liability to carry some things from the later times into the 
earlier. 

John Lawrence, from 1852 to 1864 the editor of the 
Religious Telescope, produced the next history of the Church, 
in two volumes, the first appearing in 1860, and the second in 
1861. The first volume contained a history of the Waldenses, 
the Unitas Fratrum, and other sects, his object in bringing in 
this outside material being, as he afterward expressed it, “to 
make a big book.” He was an able and brilliant writer, and 
furnished a lifelike portrait of the struggles and successes of the 
Church. His later life was spent as one of the leading lawyers 
of Nashville, Tennessee. 

At the call of the Church, the next one to undertake the 
preparation of a history of the Church was Daniel Berger, 
whose history appeared in 1897. As long connected with the 
Church, and an editor of the Religious Telescope for five 
years, and for many years editor of the Sunday-school litera¬ 
ture of the Church, being withal a most careful and polished 
writer, he made a valued contribution to the historical litera¬ 
ture of the Church. 

H. A. Thompson, in his book, Our Bishops, followed the 
central stream in the history of the Church. Lives of Bishops 
in separate volumes have been written as follows: William 
Otterbein, by A. W. Drury; David Edwards, by L. Davis; 
J. J. Glossbrenner, by A. W. Drury; J. Weaver, by H. A. 
Thompson; E. B. Kephart, by L. F. John; J. W. Hott, by 
M. R. Drury; J. S. Mills, by W. R. Funk; and N. Castle, by 
William M. Bell. 

Of the following named ministers, biographies or re¬ 
miniscences have been written: Samuel Huber, J. Fetterhoff, 
J. S. Kessler, J. Bach tel, I. L. Kephart, Lydia Sexton, A. J. 
Newgent, J. G. Baldwin, C. J. Burkert, W. M. Weekley, 
D. K. Flickinger. 

Mention should be made of the value for historical pur¬ 
poses of the two volumes, Our Heroes, by W. M. Weekley and 
H. H. Fout, giving sketches of some of the most worthy and 
efficient workers of the past. 

Of historical value also, though in a different way, is the 
volume entitled, Landmark History of the United Brethren 
Church, by D. Eberly, I. H. Albright, and C. I. B. Brane, 
giving accounts of pioneer workers and historic places in 
Pennsylvania and Maryland. 

The minutes of annual and general conferences from 1800 
to 1818, translated from the German by A. W. Drury, more 


8 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


than any other documents, introduce us to the spirit and 
activities of the founders of the Church. Next to these min¬ 
utes or along with them, stands the Journal of Newcomer, 
not appreciated when it was published in 1834, but now a 
priceless possession. 

More or less full histories of a number of conferences have 
been written, and other conferences have published souvenir 
copies of minutes containing valuable historical material. 

Books have been published giving a history of some of 
our educational institutions, and likewise books giving a 
history of the missionary work of the Church. Much historical 
material was brought forward in connection with centennial 
observances in 1900 and 1901. Likewise, the litigation that 
followed the session of the General Conference in 1889 led to 
the closer scanning of all denominational history. 

The following pages are committed to the Church and 
the general public with the hope that they may contribute to 
a better knowledge of the devotion, sacrifices, and triumphs 
of those that have preceded us, and help to promote in us 
and those that shall follow us a stronger and more intelligent 
devotion to Christ and a higher appreciation of his Church, 
the divinely appointed instrument in building up His Kingdom. 

A. W. Drury. 


AUGUST, 1924. 


PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION OF LIFE OF OTTERBEIN 


/ T ONLY remains for me to give statement to a few points by way 
of preface to what is herewith presented as the Life of Otterbein. 
The designation given, it is conceded, is in various respects unsuit¬ 
able. Many things essential or important to the true life-history of 
Otterbein are irrecoverably lost, or survive only in imperfect outlines; and 
some things to which space in the following pages is given may seem to 
include too wide a circle about him to be consistent with the title used. 
It might be more fit if the materials here given should pass under the 
character of a memorial volume—a volume of the extant facts—on the 
life and career of Otterbein. 


In my work I have constantly been compelled to struggle with the 
meagerness of material, and in some parts with the uncertainty and con- 
fliction of testimony. 

I have sought to honor facts, and to allow them to make their own im¬ 
pression and impart their own coloring. From the endeavor to give to 
facts this place, various consequences follow. The difficulty of tracing 
a faintly-marked line of facts almost necessarily excludes literary attrac¬ 
tiveness. 

Likewise an unflinching devotion to historical truth may excite, on 
controverted points, the charge of want of charity, if not of want of fair¬ 
ness; while, perhaps in regard to the same points, others may feel that 
too much has been conceded. In regard to these and kindred points I 
have only to say that, while I have sought to avoid all approach to rashness, 
I have not suffered myself to be influenced by the fear of criticism. The 
cause of truth is best served by the positive presentation of facts. 

It was my first intention to give numerous foot-notes as to sources and 
evidences; but from the fact that much of the material employed was 
gathered from sources other than books, and in view of the apparent pedan¬ 
try of such notes in a work of this kind, only a few citations of authorities 
in the form of notes are made. 

I have admitted many quotations, some of them being quite extended. 
This has not been to save work, but to give the reader an opportunity to 
use his own judgment, and to catch for himself the spirit of the prominent 
actors, and gain a living impression of the times. 

In addition to the attention given to the relations of the particular 
subjects presented to general church-history, special attention has been 


9 



10 


THEJJNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


given to contemporary denominational history in the United States, par¬ 
ticularly in the Reformed, Mennonite, and Methodist lines. 

On the histories of the United Brethren in Christ by Spayth and 
Lawrence respectively, a remark will be in place. Starting out skeptical 
as to some of the points presented in these histories, I have been impelled 
carefully to examine all of the statements contained that have a bearing 
on the subjects presented in this work; and the conclusion reached is de¬ 
cidedly in favor of the general accuracy of these writers. Mr. Spayth’s 
opportunities were rare. He visited both Otterbein and Boehm with a 
view to obtain from them facts as to their lives. His few mistakes as to 
facts are confined to matters in regard to which he could not have full 
information at hand. Mr. Lawrence, while giving much of the same ma¬ 
terial as Mr. Spayth, went over the ground independently, and had the 
advantage of some sources not open to his predecessor. 

In some of the parts in which the following work seems merely to copy 
from the histories named, I have had the advantage of the sources back of 
these histories. In addition to this, Mr. Lawrence has kindly indicated to 
me the particular sources for those gatherings for his history that were 
obtained from personal testimonies. Thus, in different ways, I have had 
an opportunity to exercise a careful personal judgment as to a number 
of facts that I may seem to be simply transferring to my own pages. 

Of assistance rendered by Rev. F. W. Cuno, of Hanover, Germany, 
I make a grateful acknowledgment. Pastor Cuno is the author of a num¬ 
ber of works on historical and antiquarian subjects. He has written a 
considerable number of articles on the Otterbein family. These articles, 
together with much information communicated to me directly, have been, 
in the preparation of the first two chapters and of some other parts, of 
the greatest service. His esteem for the Otterbeins—among them William 
Otterbein—is of a character at the same time gratifying and remarkable. 

Dr. J. H. Dubbs, of the Reformed Church, by direct correspondence 
and through his published articles, has placed me under the highest obliga¬ 
tions to him. On matters pertaining to the Reformed Church in the United 
States no one is better informed than he. 

Levi Reist, Esq., of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has rendered 
great service in relation to the history of the Mennonites. Mr. Reist has 
a rare genius for facts, and has had exceptional opportunities for acquaint¬ 
ing himself with early Mennonite history. 

To many kind friends I owe a debt of acknowledgment. Of those 
not already named, I can only take space to name H. B. Stehman, M. D., 
of Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Jacob Knipp, Jr., of Baltimore, Maryland, and 
Rev. Wm. Mittendorf, of Dayton, Ohio. 


PREFACE 


11 


With the hope that this book may contribute something toward 
the perpetuation and extension of the vital, aggressive Christianity with 
which the name of Otterbein is so prominently associated, t is hereby 
submitted to the Christian public. 


DECEMBER, 1884. 


A. W. DRURY 













CONTENTS 


Preface. 3 

Preface to first edition of Life of Otterbein. 9 

List of illustrations. 25 


PART FIRST 

Otterbein and His Co-Workers 
The Religious Movement 

CHAPTER 1. 

LIFE OF OTTERBEIN TO HIS ENTRANCE UPON THE HOLY MINISTRY. 
Nassau—Dillenburg—Otterbein Family—Home Training—Death of 
the Father—A Quotation—Brothers and Sisters—In School at 
Herborn—Character of Instructors. 27 

CHAPTER II. 

BECOMES A MINISTER, THEN A MISSIONARY. 

Serves as House-Teacher—Preceptor—Ordination—Duties as Vicar— 
Oppositions—Call for Missionaries—Recommendation—The Sep¬ 
aration—The Voyage. 41 


CHAPTER III. 

MINISTRY AT LANCASTER. 

The Germans in America—Condition of Religion—Lancaster—Success 
of his Ministry—Crisis in his Experience—Significance of the 
same—Case of Dr. Hendel, Jr.—Assurance—The Extremes of 
Formality and Capriciousness—Two worthy Types Combined— 

The End of Written Sermons—Calvinism Forsaken. 51 

CHAPTER IV. 

MINISTRY AT TULPEHOCKEN. 

The Tulpehocken Settlement—The Church—Pleasant Features— 
Stahlschmidt’s Testimony—New Measures—The Prayer-meeting 
—Return of the Social, or Laical Spirit. 67 


13 










14 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


CHAPTER V. 

MINISTRY AT FREDERICK. 

Character of the Congregation—Various Interests Advanced—Opposi¬ 
tions—Calls to Other Places—Marriage—The LeRoy Family- 
Death of Mrs. Otterbein. 77 


CHAPTER VI. 

MINISTRY AT YORK. 

History of the Congregation—Labors Rewarded—Meeting at Isaac 
Long’s—Time of the Meeting—Visit to Germany—Incidents— 

The Farewell and Return—Concludes his Labors at York. 87 

CHAPTER VII. 

CO-LABORERS. 

The Mennonites—Ancestors of Martin Boehm—Birth and Early Life 
of Boehm—His Selection for the Ministry—Conversion—Visit to 
Virginia—The “Virginia Preachers”—Meeting at Isaac Long’s— 

The Religious Movement—Boehm’s Preaching—The River 
Brethren—Condition of the Mennonites—Opposition—Boehm 
Expelled—George Adam Geeting—His Conversion—Becomes a 
Preacher—His Home on the Antietam—Close Relations with 
Mr. Otterbein—Other Laborers. 95 

CHAPTER VIII. 

CALL TO BALTIMORE. 

Mr. Otterbein’s Position—The Old Congregation—Troubles—Mr. 
Schwope—The New Congregation—Efforts to Bring it Back— 
Independence of the Congregation—Asbury’s Statement—Hildt’s 
Testimony—The Property of the Congregation—Trial of 1840— 
Extract from Griffith’s Annals—Not Represented by Elders— 
Importance of Reaching the Truth.Ill 

CHAPTER IX. 

ESTABLISHMENT AND PROGRESS OF THE BALTIMORE CONGREGATION. 

Churches Built—The Congregation—Rules of Discipline—Later 
History.121 


CHAPTER X. 

CO-LABORERS IN GENERAL. 

Hendel—Wagner—Hautz—Henop—Weimer—Schwope—A Pietistic 
Tendency—Minutes of Important Meetings—A License—Remarks 
—The Methodists—Asbury and Otterbein—Asbury’s Consecra¬ 
tion as Superintendent—Incidents.133 








CONTENTS 


15 


CHAPTER XI. 

PROGRESS OF THE RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT. 

Antecedent Stages—Newcomer—His Preparation for the Work—His 
Account of his Connection with the Movement—Various Notes of 
Progress—Conference of 1789—Members of the Conference— 
Objects Sought—Confession of Faith and Rules—Conference of 
1791—New Members—The Extent and Character of the Work— 

Mr. Otterbein’s Presence and Assistance—The Antietam Meet¬ 
ings—Mr. Otterbein Present at Meetings of the Reformed Church 
—The Methodists Welcomed to His Church—Mr. Otterbein Wear¬ 
ing Out.149 


CHAPTER XII. 

OTTERBEIN AND THE REFORMED CHURCH. 

Want of Congeniality—Growing Alienation—Condition of the German 
Churches—Various Testimonies—Facts in General—Why some 
Misunderstood Otterbein—Otterbein’s Twofold Relation—Rela¬ 
tion on the Reformed Side Vanishing—An Incident—Geeting’s 
Expulsion—Synod of 1806—Another Incident—Contrary Testi¬ 
monies Examined—Winters’ Testimony—Aurandt’s Testimony— 

The two Relations Incompatible—The Responsibility—State¬ 
ments of Dr. Benjamin Kurtz, Bishop Asbury, and Dr. Zacharias.. . 171 


CHAPTER XIII. 

OTTERBEIN AND THE UNITED BRETHREN. 

Conference of 1800—The Election of Bishops—Minutes of 1801— 
Minutes of 1802—Minutes of 1803—Minutes of 1804—Minutes 
of 1805—Otterbein’s Preaching at Conferences and Big Meetings 
—Otterbein Sick—Partial Recovery.183 


CHAPTER XIV. 

FRIENDLY RELATIONS—DEATH OF BOEHM AND GEETING. 

An Incident—A Plan of Cooperation with the Methodists—Organic 
Union not Thought Of—Early Friendliness—Priority in the 
Work—Ranke’s Description of Popular Movements—Compara¬ 
tive Disadvantages of the United Brethren—Unfair Classification 
—Review of Boehm’s Life—Incidents—The Hollingsworth Paper 
—Boehm’s Alleged Withdrawal from the United Brethren—Re¬ 
view of Geeting’s Life.201 





16 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


CHAPTER XV. 

DOMESTIC LIFE—MISCELLANEOUS INCIDENTS. 

Situation at the Parsonage—The Drucks Family—Domestic Inci¬ 
dents—Personal Habits— Benevolence—Otterbein and His Car¬ 
riage-Boys—Otterbein in the Family—As Preacher and Pastor— 
Oppositions—Figures—Freemasonry—Unfavorable Incidents.217 

CHAPTER XVI. 

OTTERBEIN’S EXTANT PAPERS. 

Scanty Literary Remains—Destroyed his Papers—Letter on Doctrine 
and Discipline—Letter on the Millennium—Letter on the Theater 
—Letter to an Intemperate Man—Latin Sermons—Sermon 
Sketch—Books.225 


CHAPTER XVII. 

OTTERBEIN’S LAST YEAR. 

Asbury’s Visit—Newcomer in Baltimore—Ordination of Newcomer, 
Hoffman, and Schaffer—Dr. Harbaugh’s Views—Wm. Ryland— 

The Last Hour—The Last Words—The Funeral—Those Partici¬ 
pating—His Age—His Tomb—His Congregation—His Will— 
Tributes of Asbury, Dr. B. Kurtz, Dr. Zacharias, and John Hildt— 
Henry Boehm’s Description—Pictures of Otterbein—His Life- 
Work—His Retrospect—His Vision of the Future—The Key to 
His Life—His Name Growing Brighter—Recent Words—His An¬ 
swers to Asbury’s Questions—His Aim and Reward.235 


PART SECOND 

Church Character Assumed; 

The Development and History of the Church 

chapter i. 

THE SCOPE OF THE EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT. 

Pennsylvania Germans—Testimony from Outside Sources—Asbury’s 
Descriptions—Asbury’s Statistics—Losses—Testimony from With¬ 
in the Church—Sketch from Earliest Disciplines—Spirit of the 
Founders.253 

CHAPTER II. 

OUR DENOMINATIONAL NAME. 

Significance of a Name—Pre-denominational Names—Unsectarian— 
Society—Association—United Brethren—United Brethren in 
Christ—Full Name Reached.265 








CONTENTS 


17 


CHAPTER III. 

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION. 

The Church and the Kingdom—The Christian Denominations—The 
Good and Bad of Institutions—The Spirit of a Denomination.... 271 

CHAPTER IV. 

BEGINNING AND GROWTH OF CHURCH CHARACTER. 

A Church not at First Intended—Successive Steps—Minutes of 1812— 

Acts of 1813—Confession of Faith and Rules of 1814—Securing a 
Pastor for Otterbein’s Church.275 

CHAPTER V. 

THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 

Firet Steps Westward—The National Highway and the Forbes Road— 
Newcomer’s First Visit—Visit in 1803—Early Preachers—Be¬ 
ginnings at Mount Pleasant—Mount Pleasant Church Property— 
Newcomer’s Later Visits—Pioneering in Ohio—Miami Confer¬ 
ence Organized—Beginnings in Miami Valley and Scioto Regions— 
Beginnings in Indiana and Kentucky—The Miami Conference 
Minutes of 1814.289 


CHAPTER VI. 

THE FIRST TWO GENERAL CONFERENCES. 

Occasion for a General Conference—Minutes of the Conference of 
1815—The Confession and Discipline—The Delegates—Confer¬ 
ence of 1817—Minutes of Conference of 1817.315 

CHAPTER VII. 

PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837. 

Eastern Ohio—Minutes of Muskingum Conference—General Conference 
of 1821—Slavery—Ardent Spirits—Slow Awakening—Bishops 
Zeller and Hoffman—General Conference of 1825—Ordination of 
Bishops Discontinued—Bishop Henry Kumler, Sr.—General Con¬ 
ference of 1829—New Conferences—Methodist Protestants— 
Newcomer’s Death—General Conference of 1833—New Confer¬ 
ences—Printing Establishment—Bishops Hiestand and Brown. . . 327 

CHAPTER VIII. 

PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 CONTINUED; 

THE ANNUAL CONFERENCES. 

The Old Conference (1817 to 1830)—Benevolent Fund—Forming 
Classes—Division of the Old Conference—Pennsylvania Confer¬ 
ence—Virginia Conference—Miami Conference—John McNamar 
—Other English Preachers—Scioto Conference Formed—Indiana 
Conference—Wabash Settlement—Wabash Conference—Prom¬ 
inent Preachers—Scioto Conference—Sandusky Conference.351 






18 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


CHAPTER IX. 

THE GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1837 AND 1841. 

General Conference of 1837—Constitution of 1837—General Confer¬ 
ence of 1841—The Newly Elected Bishops—Beginnings of Alle¬ 
gheny Conference—The Itinerant Preacher.405 

CHAPTER X. 

PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865. 

General Conference of 1845—Licensing of Women to Preach—Educa¬ 
tion—Evangelism—A New Board of Bishops—Russel, Glossbren- 
ner, Hanby—General Conference of 1849—Revision and Adminis¬ 
tration—David Edwards, Bishop—General Conference of 1853— 
Missionary Work—Infant Baptism—Depravity—Removal of the 
“Telescope Office”—Lewis Davis, Bishop—General Conference 
of 1857—Bishops’ Address—Depravity Question Settled—Secret 
Societies—General Conference of 1861—Old Questions Brought 
Forward—Daniel Shuck and Jacob Markwood, Bishops—General 
Conference of 1865—Effects of the War—Sunday-school Depart¬ 
ment—Jonathan Weaver, Bishop.423 

CHAPTER XI. 

PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881. 

General Conference of 1869—Theological Education—Rule on Secret 
Societies—The African Mission—Bishop Dickson—General Con¬ 
ference of 1873—Proposed Centennial—Old Questions—General 
Conference of 1877—Climax in Struggle over Secret Societies— 
Milton Wright and Nicholas Castle, Bishops—General Conference 
of 1881—Pro Rata Representation Enacted—Deadlock on Secret 
Society Legislation—Bishop E. B. Kephart.463 

CHAPTER XII. 

PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897. 

RECONSTRUCTION AND LITIGATION 

General Conference of 1885—The Church Commission—Bishop 
Flickinger—Work of the Commission—General Conference of 
1889—Adoption of the Work of the Commission—The Withdrawal 
—Other Measures—Bishop Hott—General Conference of 1893— 
Young People’s Work—Bishop Mills—General Conference of 
1897—Litigation—A Federal Case—Cost and Gain—United 
Brethren Church (Old Constitution).487 

CHAPTER XIII. 

PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924. 

General Conference of 1901—Representation in the General Conference 
—Centennial Features—Bishop Mathews—General Conference 






CONTENTS 


19 


of 1905—Church Union—Bishops Weekley, Bell, and Carter— 
General Conference of 1909—Church Union Again—General 
Conference of 1913—Church Union—Bishops H. H. Fout, C. J. 
Kephart, and A. T. Howard—General Conference of 1917—A New 
Board—Church Union Halted—Bishop W. H. Washinger— 
General Conference of 1921—New Measures—Bishop A. R. 
Clippinger—Final Survey.519 


Part Third 

DEPARTMENTS OF CHURCH WORK 
CHAPTER I. 

THE UNITED BRETHREN PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 
Beginning of Religious Newspapers—The Publishing House in Circle- 
ville—Removal to Dayton—Personal Sketches—Periodicals—The 
Religious Telescope—German Papers—Sunday-School Literature— 
Magazines—Independent Journalism—Books—Financial Growth— 
Personal Sketches_559 


CHAPTER II. 

FOREIGN MISSIONS 

Home and Frontier Beginnings—World-Wide Missions—The African 
Mission—The Women’s Missionary Association—Germany—China 
—Japan—Porto Rico—The Philippines_583 

CHAPTER III. 

ORGANIZATIONS FOR HOME WORK 

Home Missions—Church-Erection_611 

CHAPTER IV. 

COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 

Otterbein College—Mt. Pleasant College—Leander Clark College— 
Lebanon Valley College—Philomath College—York College— 
Kansas City University—Indiana Central College—Shenandoah In¬ 
stitute—Discontinued Institutions-619 


CHAPTER V. 

BONEBRAKE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 

The Founding—The New Name—The New Location—Results Achieved 
—The Financial Support___-..645 









20 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


CHAPTER VI. 

THE SUNDAY SCHOOL 

The Beginnings—The Sabbath-School Association—Later History-651 


First Steps—Christian 
Control_ 

CHAPTER VII. 

YOUNG PEOPLE’S WORK 

Endeavor—Recent Developments—Board of 

_657 


CHAPTER VIII. 

BOARD OF EDUCATION 


The Founding—The Functions—The Achievements-663 

CHAPTER IX. 

BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION 

Antecedent Steps—Scope of Operation—United Enlistment Movement— 
Present and Future Demands-665 


Board of Evangelism. . 

CHAPTER X. 

BOARD OF EVANGELISM 

_ _669 

Ministerial Pensions 

CHAPTER XI. 

MINISTERIAL PENSIONS 

_ _671 


CHAPTER XII. 


BENEVOLENT HOMES 

Old People’s Home—Quincy Orphanage—Otterbein Home—Baker Home. _ 673 

CHAPTER XIII. 

GENERAL BOARD OF CHURCH TRUSTEES 
HISTORICAL SOCIETY 

General Board of Church Trustees and Historical Society_677 









CONTENTS 


21 


Part Fourth 

ANNUAL CONFERENCES 

Virginia—West Virginia—Pennsylvania—East Pennsylvania—Allegheny 
—East Ohio —Erie—Miami —Scioto —Sandusky —Indiana —White 
River—St. Joseph — Michigan — Illinois—Wisconsin—Kentucky— 
Tennessee—Florida—Iowa— Minnesota— Missouri— Kansas— Ne¬ 
braska—Colorado—Oklahoma—New Mexico— Montana—Oregon 
Columbia River—California—Ohio German—Discontinued Confer¬ 
ences _679 


Part Fifth 

I. HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES 

General Officers_783 

Growth in Membership_788 

General Conferences_788 

Educational Institutions_ 788 

Historical Outline_ 789 

Conferences_ 789 

Ordination of Bishops_ 791 

Pastors of Otterbein's Church_791 

Church Statistics_792 

II. APPENDICES 

Correspondence between the United Brethren and the Methodist 

Episcopal Church__ 796 

Church Polity_808 

Portraits of Otterbein_812 

Index_„_____813 




























ILLUSTRATIONS 


William Otterbein, Frontispiece_ 

Dillenburg in the 18th Century_ 

Dillenburg at the Present Time_ 

William Otterbein from Jarvis Portrait 

Martin Boehm_ 

Isaac Long’s Barn_ 

Peter Kemp’s House_ 

Otterbein's Church, Baltimore_ 

Benedict Schwope_ 

Bishop Francis Asbury_ 

Bishop Jacob Erb_ 

Bishop Henry Kumler, Jr___ 

Bishop J. J. Glossbrenner_ 

Bishop Daniel Shuck_ 

Bishop Jacob Markwood_ 

Bishop J. Weaver___ 

Bishop D. K. Flickinger_ 

Bishop J. Dickson___ 

Bishop T. C. Carter_ 

Bishop J. S. Mills__ 

Bishop E. B. Kephart_ 

Bishop G. M. Mathews_ 

Bishop N. Castle.... 

Bishop W. M. Bell_ 

Bishop A. R. Clippinger_ 

Bishop W. M. Weekley_ 

Bishop W. H. Washinger__ 

Bishop H. H. Fout_ 

Bishop C. J. Kephart___ 

William J. Shuey_ 

William McKee_ 

William R. Funk_ 

Robert Cowden_ 

Bishop William Hanby_ 

Bishop David Edwards_ 

John Lawrence... 

Daniel Berger_ 

Bishop J. W. Hott... 

Bishop Milton Wright_ 

William R. Rhinehart_ 

I. L, Kephart..._ 

J. M. Phillippi_ 

John C. Bright_ 

Bishop A. T, Howard.. 

B. F. Booth_ 

A. W. Drury..____ 

Joseph Gomer_ 

Zebidee Warner_ 


Insert Description 

Facing Page on Page 


1_ 

_246, 812 

32_ 

_ 28 

33_ 

_ 28 

96_ 

_246, 812 

96_ 

_ 95 

97_ 

_ 88 

128_ 

_184 

129_ 

_ 121 

129_ 

_112 

129_ 

_144 

288_ 

_414 

288_ 

_415 

289_ 

_366 

289_ 

_415 

289. 

_453 

320_ 

_457 

320_ 

_492 

320_ 

_466 

321_ 

_536 

321_ 

_509 

321_ 

_481 

384_ 

... 524 

384_ 

_47 6 

384_ 

_ 534 

384_ 

_553 

384_ 

_532 

384_ 

_548 

384_ 

_542 

384_ 

_544 

385_ 

_579 

385_ 

_527 

385_ 

_581 

385_ 

_654 

416_ 

_430 

416_ 

_433 

416_ 

_565 

416_ 

_566, 572 

416_ 

_505 

416_ 

_474 

417_ 

_376 

417_ 

_566, 567 

417_ 

_566, 568 

480_ 

_586 

480_ 

_545 

480_ 

_698 

480_ 

_647 

480_ 

_591 

480_ 

_ 593 


23 



































































































24 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Insert 

Facing Page 


William Mittendorf.....—--481 

John Kemp_ 481 

Mrs. T. N. Sowers_ 512 

Mrs. Sylvia Haywood_512 

Mrs. L. K. Miller______512 

Mrs. L. R. Harford.........512 

Lizzie Hoffman Derrickson- 513 

Mrs. W. J. Shuey_ 513 

Mrs. D. L. Rike.______513 

Miss Vera Blinn_ 513 

D. L. Rike. 672 

Solomon Keister_ 672 

Samuel E. Kumler_ 673 

Matt Edmonds____.__ 673. 

Leander Clark. 673. 

John Hulitt_673 

John Dodds_ 673. 

John Thomas.. 673. 

Dr. Lewis Davis___ 704. 

Mr. and Mrs. J. M. Bonebrake_____ 704. 

Administration Building of Bonebrake Theological Seminary_ 705. 

Dormitory of Bonebrake Theological Seminary_ 705. 

Bible Training School, San Fernando, Philippine Islands... 705. 

Quincy Orphanage and Home, Quincy, Pennsylvania_ 768. 

Main Building, Otterbein Home, Lebanon, Ohio_ 768. 

Elizabeth Kumler Miller Seminary, Siu Lam, China_ 769. 

Ramsberg Hospital, Siu Lam, China_ 769. 

United Brethren Office Building.. 800. 

Otterbein Press Building__ 801. 


Description 
on Page 

.570 

.648 

.599 

.599 

.599 

.599 

.598 

_599 

.599 

.599 

.709 

.696 

.709 

.762 

.629 

.712 

.709 

.696 

...622, 646 

.648 

_648 

..648 

.610 

.673 

.674 

..605 

.604 

...578, 579 
...578, 579 




























































HISTORY OF THE CHURCH 

of the 

UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Part First 

OTTERBEIN AND HIS CO-WORKERS 
THE RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT 





CHAPTER I. 


LIFE OF OTTERBEIN TO HIS ENTRANCE UPON THE HOLY 
MINISTRY 

Nassau—Dillenburg—Otterbein Family—Home Training—Death of the 
Father—A Quotation—Brothers and Sisters—In School at Herborn— 
Character of Instructors. 

r HE life and labors of Rev. Philip William Otterbein, 
in more respects than one, were of a solitary character. 
His is the only one of his family name that, by reason 
of eminent services, has obtained a place in the annals 
of our country. He labored among the Germans, who had not, 
at the early period at which he labored, obtained a recognized 
relation to our growing population. The dust from the pinions 
of time has been falling for full seventy years (to 1884) on the 
events of his completed life; and the gray distance of nearly 
double that period spreads a veil over his childhood and early 
manhood in the Fatherland. Thus there is only left to us— 
what shall we say—the solitary form of an honored saint. 

It will scarcely be grateful to some to have this form ex¬ 
changed, even to the extent that, at this late day, it can be 
done, for one more truly human, and toilsomely contending 
amidst the circumstances of ordinary life. Yet if the holy 
dead are to inspire and instruct us by their saintly lives and 
heroic struggles, their real likeness to ourselves, in all essential 
respects, must be made apparent. This is the marked char¬ 
acteristic of the biographies that are traced for us in Holy 
Writ. 

But what features are necessary to such a presentation? 
Instinctively we look for country, kindred, associates, educa¬ 
tion, the early heart-strivings, and the sustained after-conflict. 

Nassau,* the country in Germany to which we now turn 
our attention as the home of the Otterbein family, is at present 

*In 1255 Nassau was divided into two parts, and from that time was ruled by two lines 
of counts, which lines became divided at times into several parallel branches. At an early 
time the younger line obtained important possessions in the Netherlands. In 1544, William, 


27 



28 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


included as a part of the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau. 
The name now given to it on the map is Wiesbaden. It is 
bounded on the North by Westphalia, on the east by the 
provinces of ancient Hesse, and on the south and west, for the 
most part, by the Main and Rhine. It extends over an area 
of 1,808 square miles, and in 1866 had a population of 468,311, 
the majority of the number being Protestants. *In the south 
the country is quite mountainous, and in the north, in some 
parts, it is high and barren. The valleys are very productive. 
A number of streams traverse the country. The country is 
rich in minerals, and is specially noted for its mineral springs. 
The inhabitants derived, in past times, great advantages from 
the physical characteristics of the country; and their relations, 
which were specially intimate with the Netherlands, and the 
Rhine countries even to the mountains of Switzerland, gave 
them broad intercourse and a stimulating outlook. In early 
times the older Nassau line gave an emperor to Germany, but 
in later times the younger line, through the so-called Orange 
princes, reached a higher celebrity, in furnishing the deliverer 
of the Netherlands and giving a king to England. 

In this favored land, in the ancient and picturesque city 
of Dillenburg, on the 3df day of June, 1726, Philip William 
Otterbein was born. Dillenburg lay on a sloping elevation 
overlooking the river Dille. Some distance away stood a 
noble ancient castle, the birthplace and residence of an illus¬ 
trious line of counts. Here William the Silent was born. 
The castle was destroyed in 1760, and in its place there was 

the heir of this line, called William the Silent, fell heir to the principality of Orange, and im¬ 
portant possessions in Holland, and elsewhere. By reason of his estates in Holland, he came 
to be closely connected with the affairs of that country, and at length the founder of its inde¬ 
pendence. About 1560 William resigned his paternal inheritance in Nassau to his brothers, 
and there came to be several princes of the younger line ruling over the different parts of 
Orange Nassau. The count of Nassau-Dillenburg was one of the most important of these 
princes. His capital was, of course, Dillenburg. About 1740 the different possessions of the 
younger line were again united under a single ruler, and the prince of this line became, in 1815. 
king of the Netherlands. Orange Nassau, in 1815, was united with the possessions of the older 
line, which in 1806 had been formed by Napoleon into a dukedom. 

*In view of the confusion brought about by the World War it is not regarded advisable 
to make changes to suit present conditions. 

fA number of different dates have been given for the birth of Otterbein. I. D. Rupp, Esq., 
in the books written by him, gives November 6, 1726. Rev. H. G. Spayth, gives March 6, 
1726. The date given in the Baltimore daily at the time of his death was June 2, 1726. June 




EARLY LIFE OF OTTERBEIN 


29 


later erected a lofty tower in memory of the distinguished 
patriot just named. Hanging on the walls within the tower are 
three pictures of the castle for the years 1620, 1640-1650 and 
1711 respectively, of which the last is represented in the 
accompanying engraving. Dillenburg contained in the middle 
of the eighteenth century some over three thousand inhabi¬ 
tants. It was noted for its Latin school and female seminary. 

It is not only gratifying that we are able to know something 
of the Otterbein family in Germany, but it is an unmeasured 
pleasure to find that the knowledge that may be gained is at 
the same time honorable, and calculated to instruct and 
inspire. The earliest known ancestor of this family was the 
court-trumpeter John Otterbein, who came, about 1650, from 
Salzschlirf, near Fulda, to Dillenburg. He was married in 
1658 to Agnes Deichman, whose grandfather had fled from 
Siegen, on account of persecution, in the beginning of the 
seventeenth century. To these parents were born two sons, 
one of whom was Charles Frederick, born in 1667. He married 
Anna Christina Hatzfeldt, the daughter of the pastor at 
Driedorf. With Charles Frederick, and from his time, the 
family assumed its ministerial character, which it afterward 
maintained with great and steady luster. Two of his six 
children became pastors. 

John Daniel, the older of these, and the oldest of the 
family, was born September 6th, 1696. He was married No¬ 
vember 28th, 1719, to Miss Wilhelmina Henrietta, the ac¬ 
complished daughter of John Jacob Hoerlen. In a paper 
proceeding from the faculty of the Herborn school, she is called 

4. 1726, occurs in the inscription on his tomb. The authority back of June 4 as the date is 
an incidental mention that occurs in a letter of recommendation given by the faculty at Her¬ 
born, when he became a missionary. To show, however, that the date incidentally given in 
the recommendation was not given by Otterbein himself, it is necessary to refer to but a single 
point. In the paper, where the maiden name of his mother should occur, a blank was left. 
The fact that he allowed the date, now found to be incorrect, to stand, is not stranger than 
that he should not have filled the blank. The following entry taken from the Dillenburg 
church-record is decisive in favor of June 3: “To Mr. John Daniel Otterbein, praeceptori 
primario (rector) of the Latin school, and Mrs. Wilhelmina Henrietta, were born twins on the 
3d of June, early in the morning at 2 o’clock. The older is a son, and the second a daughter. 
Both were baptized on the 6th of June; the godfather for the son was Philip William Keller, 
steward of the kitchen (Kuechenmeister) to the court; the godmother for the second, the wife 
of Mr. John Martin Keller, butler (Kellermeister) to the court. The son was called Philip 
William, and the daughter Anna Margaret.” 



30 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


“the right noble and very virtuous woman, Wilhelmina Hen¬ 
rietta/' Of her high mental and moral endowments more will be 
said later. These were the parents of Philip William Otterbein. 

The father was called “the right reverend and very 
learned John Daniel Otterbein." He studied at Herborn, and 
in 1718 became a candidate of the ministry. In 1719 he be¬ 
came a teacher in the Reformed Latin school at Dillenburg, of 
which he soon afterward became rector. In this position his 
learning, ability to instruct, and piety, at once gave him an 
honored place. 

The house in Dillenburg in which he lived, and in which 
the older children were born, while respectable, was yet hum¬ 
ble. The house stood close to the church, and also near to the 
building in which the Latin school was held. Beneath the 
church was the family burying-vault of the princes. In this 
house Philip William was born. The house still stands,*— 
such is the firmness with which the buildings in Germany are 
constructed. History surely does not err in picturing to us a 
home of order and happiness for the family of the pious young 
rector. The home became gladdened by a full half-dozen 
bright young faces; and soon, too, the sad light from two 
vacant places in the circle fell upon the hearts of the parents. 

In the spring of 1728, John Daniel Otterbein became 
pastor of the congregations at Frohnhausen and Wissenbach. 
He thereupon moved to Frohnhausen, the principal place, 
situated about three miles north of Dillenburg. At that time, 
in Germany, a minister and his family were held in high esteem 
by the people. The family formed the kindly center for the 
parish. Here the younger children were born; and here, as 
the proper age was reached, the children received in their 
studies the faithful and skillful assistance of the father. By 
this home instruction they received not only their first im¬ 
pulse toward knowledge, but such a preparation as would 
enable them to enter schools of advanced grade. 

The Reformed Church in Nassau made great account of 
the Heidelberg Catechism. The Otterbeins showed great 
partiality toward it, and among the famous catechisms it is 


'The house stands at the rear of the church near the castle—now the tower. 



EARLY LIFE OF OTTERBEIN 


31 


doubtless, as regards elementary instruction in religion, the 
best. A considerable part of the duty of the parish minister 
was to inculcate the catechism. All children were obliged to 
become well acquainted with it, and after an examination, 
when about twelve years of age, were confirmed. They 
were then admitted to communion and to all of the privileges 
of the church. Philip William doubtless met with the catechet¬ 
ical class, consisting of the children of the parish and taught 
by his father, and in due time, with the others of his age, 
received confirmation. 

In the light of what has already been given, we cease to 
wonder what the home training of young Philip William was. 
Every Otterbein whose name we have gives evidence that he 
was an Otterbein—was of the common stamp. The charac¬ 
teristic solidity, strength, and piety had no known exception. 
We must believe that this was not the result of accidental 
influence, or of influences external to the home. Nor can we 
we believe that it came from mere inherent qualities. 

We naturally turn, by contrast, to the defects of homes 
that are not so distant in time and place. The father, in many 
instances, lends not character and authority in the work of 
training. In other instances there is authority without love, 
and often rigor fitfully sustained. In still other cases the 
father is but the parody of a man, and allows himself by word 
and action to be seen as such by his children. If there is an 
unrestrained wag-element in the father, it will likely run away 
with the children. Many children receive no training— 
except when they have misbehaved. 

If there is nothing in the parents to inspire reverence for 
a superior, and esteem for soberness and goodness, is it any 
wonder that the children are devoid of reverence and healthful 
appreciation? It is a sad fact, too, that much care is fruitless 
through want of wisdom and steady policy. Children, though 
responsible to the parents for a given time, are afterward to 
be thrown upon themselves; and if the voluntary principle of 
piety and right-doing is not implanted, the result need be to 
no one surprising. There is, too, a care that tends to produce 
callousness, moral distaste, and reaction. 


32 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


In the Otterbein family there was a strong and healthful 
family spirit, extending beyond the immediate household. 
There were also hearty and liberal social sympathies. Thus 
were alliances brought to sustain a proper home-life, and to 
develop and ennoble personal and social character. 

The religious character of John Daniel Otterbein was 
sincere and decided. In the baptismal register at Frohnhausen, 
he wrote as follows: “Here I, J. D. 0., begin in the name of 
the Triune God and will continue this work to his honor, 
which must be the nature of all our private as well as public 
deeds and acts.” 

In the marriage register he expressed himself in a similar 
manner: “Deus Triunus, cui me et omnia mea dicavi , faxit, ut 
initium meum sit pium, sanctum et salutare t quo actiones meae 
universae cedant ad sui nominis gloriam multorumque aedifica- 
tionem in salutem” That is, “May the Triune God, to whom 
I have committed myself and all my possessions, grant that 
my beginning be pious, holy, and salutary, so that all my 
actions may redound to the honor of his name and the blessed 
edification of many.” 

But Mr. Otterbein's ministry, after a term of fourteen 
laborious and fruitful years, was by death abruptly brought to 
a close. He died November 14th, 1742, in the beginning of his 
forty-seventh year. His funeral sermon was preached by Dr. 
Schramm, “to a tearful audience,” from Matthew, twenty- 
fourth chapter and forty-fifth and forty-sixth verses: “Who 
then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made 
ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? 
Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when he cometh shall 
find so doing.” 

The following account written in 1802 for the Nassau 
Chronicle and Vade Mecum , by Mr. Steubing, counselor of the 
consistory, is deserving of space here—especially in conse¬ 
quence of its allusions to the different members of the family 
of John Daniel Otterbein: 

At N. N. (Frohnhausen), in the principality of Dillenburg, 
during the second quarter of the previous century, there 
was a minister who was much esteemed by his congregation. 



DILLENBURG IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 





















































































































































































































































































































































































































DILLENBURG AT THE PRESENT TIME 














EARLY LIFE OF OTTERBEIN 


33 


He was untiring in his efforts to fulfill the duties of his voca¬ 
tion; and in the circle of his family, which consisted of six 
sons and one daughter, he enjoyed every possible domestic 
happiness. Being formerly a teacher, he availed himself of 
every advantage by means of domestic instruction to prepare 
his sons for their future exalted career. His industry was so 
far rewarded that the oldest son was sent to the high-school 
at Herborn, where he had already gained the confidence of his 
teachers, when death destroyed the father’s well-conceived 
plans. The father died in 1742, without leaving any means, 
because the annual income was indeed not sufficient to meet 
even necessary expenses. The sufferings of the anxious 
mother and deeply-wounded widow were indescribable, yet 
they were not greater than her trust in God. She moved to 
Herborn because her sons could be educated much more 
cheaply there; and living was likewise less expensive. The 
following year already her oldest son received a charge from 
which he realized an amount equal to one-half of his father’s 
salary. The family fared much better now. Four years later 
he received a parish. The second son received a remunerative 
appointment by which he was able to assist in supporting the 
family and educating his younger brothers. Six years later 
he went to a foreign land, where he was living after a number 
of years, happy and honored. Then the third brother received 
a similar position, and through him the education of his re¬ 
maining brothers was fully completed. This good man still 
lives contented in this place. He had the pleasure of having 
his mother, a woman who was very respectable and most 
noble, with him; and he manifested toward her, who saw all her 
children well cared for, a genuine filial affection up to her 
death. She died at an advanced age. The three youngest 
sons left our state. They all filled good parishes and were in 
good financial circumstances. One of the sons by means of his 
writings gained for himself quite a large reading public, and 
another occupied a seat and had a voice in the consistory of 
his country. 

What a fine tribute we have in the above to the father, 
who by home instruction devoted himself to the advancement 
of his children! What a tribute to the mother, whose heart 
did not fail her when she was left alone and without temporal 
provision; who took her family, then consisting of six sons and 
a daughter, and moved to Herborn, there to give her sons the 
advantages of education! What a credit to the older sons— 


34 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Philip William being the second son referred to—who united 
their endeavors with the courage and management of the 
mother in maintaining the family and securing the education 
of their younger brothers! And what a result—six sons 
educated classically and theologically, and all of them after¬ 
ward successful and honored ministers! May we not place the 
name of Wilhelmina Henrietta Otterbein with the names of 
Lois and Eunice, and along with those of the mothers of 
Augustine, Chrysostom, and John Wesley? 

It may not be without some interest and occasional use 
to have here given a somewhat full and connected account of 
the family of John Daniel and Wilhelmina Henrietta Otter¬ 
bein. The form will be abbreviated as much as possible: 

1. Christina Henrietta, born October 19, 1720. Died 
young. 

2. John Henry, born March 21, 1722. Studied at Her- 
born 1738. He was the only one of the family that went 
away to school before the death of the father. Candidate and 
teacher at Herborn 1744. In connection with his teaching he 
served as vicar of Ockersdorf 1745. Pastor at Fleisbach 1749; 
second pastor at Herborn 1757; pastor at Burbach 1769. He 
published a number of sermons. Four of his sons became 
pastors. Died October 20, 1800. 

3. Christian Frederick, born January 7, 1724. Died in 
his twelfth year. 

4-5. Philip William and Anna Margaret, twins, born 
June 3, 1726. Anna Margaret died in infancy. 

6. John Charles, born May 14, 1728. Candidate at Her¬ 
born 1751. Teacher at Herborn from 1752 to the close of his 
life. Also served for a time in the place of the second pastor. 
After 1780 co-rector, and after 1790, rector. Died May 4, 
1807. 

7. George Godfrey, born January 14, 1731. Pastor at 
Kecken 1756. Pastor at Duisburg 1762. He was “imbued 
with apostolic zeal, and was thoroughly convinced of the error 
of the spirit of his age.” He stood associated with the leading 
minds of Germany. He felt the force of that course of events 
that ultimated in rationalism, but resisted with all his strength 
the on-rolling tide of ruin. He was the author of three vol¬ 
umes on the Heidelberg Catechism, two of them belonging to 
one work, of a volume on practical Christianity, and the editor 
of a book on “Enoch/' or walking with God. He also was 


EARLY LIFE OF OTTERBEIN 


35 


the author of text-books for schools. He realized what 
Germany now more than anything else needs to realize, that 
the schools must be protected against the poison of infidelity 
and rationalism, and made the nursery of true and healthful 
moral training. His writings were of a superior character, and 
were to some extent introduced into this country. He died 
September 10, 1800. 

8. Philipene Margaret, born March 26, 1733. Married 
to Pastor Schollen. 

9. John Daniel, born 1736; before 1766 a candidate. 
Tutor in Berleburg 1766. Second pastor at Berleburg 1771. 
First pastor 1795. Soon afterward inspector, and then coun¬ 
selor of the consistory. He published a volume on the Heidel¬ 
berg Catechism. Died 1804. 

10. Henry Daniel, born November 12, 1738. Pastor at 
Kecken 1762. Pastor at Pfalzdorf 1768. Pastor at Mulheim 
on the Ruhr, 1771. Died November 27, 1807. 

Only John Henry of the sons had descendants. The 
widest diffusion of the Otterbein family was shortly before the 
close of the eighteenth century. There were a number of 
Otterbeins outside of the family of John Daniel Otterbein that 
occupied important places as pastors and teachers. At the 
present time there are no Otterbeins in Orange Nassau, where 
once the members of the family were so numerous and in¬ 
fluential. Some families of Otterbeins from the original home 
of the Otterbein family near Fulda, have found their way to 
America. Representatives of these families reside in at least 
five different states. Some are Protestants, and others Catho¬ 
lics. At an early day some of the representatives of the Nassau 
Otterbeins also came to America, but where they or their 
descendants reside is not known. 

Let us now return and take up the history of Philip 
William from the death of his father. At the time of his 
father's death he was sixteen years of age. We may be sure 
that the orphaned children read lessons of faith out of the 
trusting and resolute countenance of their noble mother. We 
have already noticed the wise decision and courage of the 
mother in resolving upon going to Herborn. She could have 
stayed for a year in the parsonage at Frohnhausen, but she 
seems to have moved at once. Although she has been spoken 


36 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


of as having been left without property, the family, while at 
Dillenburg, had a small lot on which two cows could find 
pasture. Anything from the sale of this property, however, 
even if it was not consumed while at Frohnhausen, would 
have but meagerly contributed to the convenience of the 
family in situating itself at Herborn. 

Herborn was about three miles south of Dillenburg, and 
contained about two thousand five hundred inhabitants. It 
was chiefly noted for being the seat of a celebrated Reformed 
school. The school was founded in 1584, before the morning 
dew of the Reformation had disappeared, and almost imme¬ 
diately after the characteristic elements of the Reformed 
Church had been, by a synod that met at Herborn, adopted 
for Nassau. Olevianus, one of the authors of the Heidelberg 
Catechism, became the first theological professor, but died 
after he had occupied his chair three years. The school con¬ 
sisted of two parts—the psedagogium, or gymnasium, made up 
of five classes, and the academy.* In the academy the in¬ 
struction was given by able professors, and mostly in the form 
of lectures. 

Each class in the psedagogium had its own preceptor. In 
the paedagogium the students studied, for two years, philosophy, 
Greek and Roman literature, logic, mathematics, history, etc. 
Then they passed their examination, and in the academy took 
up medicine, jurisprudence, or theology, according to the 
course of life that they expected to pursue. The greater 
number, however, took up theology, in the study of which 
they were required to spend three years. The theological 
course was, in some respects, more complete than that now 
required in the theological seminaries of our country, and 
much more thorough than that now required of candidates for 
the ministry in Nassau. The students were required to preach 
twice a week before one of the theological professors, and every 
Sunday afternoon one of them had to lead in a Bible-lesson 
before the students. 

^Instead of “academy,” the term “university” is used in Schem’s German Cyclopaedia 
In the Cyclopaedia of Education by Kiddle and Schem it is said. “The academy connected 
with the gymnasium, after Sturm’s plan (which the school at Herborn resembled), approached 
but did not entirely reach the standard of a university.” 



EARLY LIFE OF OTTERBEIN 


37 


The theological tendency of the school is indicated by the 
fact that the students were required to study a book made up 
of selections in Latin from the writings of the great evangelical 
Netherlander, Vitringa and Lampe. Upon the writings of 
these men the professors also gave lectures. 

At Herborn, up to the middle of the eighteenth century, 
moderate Calvinism was taught. At this time the peculiarities 
of this system ceased to be accented. The Reformed Church 
in Germany has never been much given to elaborating or de¬ 
fending theological tenets—especially such as have divided the 
minds of devout Christians. Its spirit has been that of Me- 
lancthon. Such was the Herborn school when, in 1742, Philip 
William became enrolled as a student. 

What, may it be supposed, was the moral influence 
exerted upon him during the course of his studies? The in¬ 
fluence could not be from impersonal elements, but from men— 
from fellow-students and professors. 

The influence coming from his fellow-students must have 
been of a mixed character. Though the large body of the 
students were preparing for the ministry, it must not be 
supposed that even all of these were free from moral indiffer¬ 
ence or dissoluteness. Even in the ministry were those whose 
lives were offensive. To be a minister a man must have some 
mental force and scholarly equipment, but godliness was not 
always taken into account. In that period generally, just as in 
all state-churches at the present time, the office was considered 
largely apart from the moral character of the incumbent, and 
outward church-membership was often put for inward grace. 
Yet there are no circumstances in which the earnestness and 
conscious nobility of the young can be so successfully drawn 
out as in those furnished by the association of kindred minds 
in the pursuit of knowledge. Even reckoning the influence of 
students upon students, this will be found to be true. But if 
there is a peril, just as there always is where there is any 
offered good, this is in the largest measure obviated if in the 
instruction and government high moral and intellectual 
endowments fill their appropriate places. 


38 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


In the Herborn school, at the time when Philip William 
Otterbein was in attendance, very noble men filled the pro¬ 
fessors' chairs. Drs. John Henry Schramm, Valentine Arnold, 
and John Eberhardt Rau, among the professors, were men of 
rare character and fitness for their responsible work. They 
were not only learned, but were able in their contact with the 
students, to touch the secret springs of character and strength, 
and bring the latent energies of the soul into high and pleasur¬ 
able action. Dr. Rau was a celebrated orientalist, and the 
author of a number of volumes on oriental subjects. 

Special mention must be made of Drs. Schramm and 
Arnold as having exerted upon Philip William most salutary 
influence. Dr. Schramm* was an apostle of the so-called 
Thxtige Christenthum (active Christianity). As professor in 
Herborn he lectured on practical divinity, besides being 
occupied in part in exegesis. 

Dr. Arnoldf was a man of lovely and noble character, was 
a man of faith and zeal, and felt a special attachment for 
Philip William Otterbein, because of the debt that he felt that 
he owed to his father, John Daniel Otterbein, whose instruc¬ 
tions he had enjoyed in the Latin school at Dillenburg. Thus 
again did pious and disinterested influence return to bless the 
source from which it came. 

In spirit and belief Schramm and Arnold were alike. It 
was under their direction that the students studied the com¬ 
pendium formed from the writings of Vitringa and Lampe. 
Vitringa and Lampe were great Netherland theologians, who 
confessed to the influence that they had received from Cocceius, 
another great theologian whose center of influence was the 
Netherlands rather than Germany, and who has been spoken 
of as “a man mighty in the Spirit, and far in advance of most 

*He was born March 20, 1676. He became chief preceptor at Herborn in 1701, went as 
pastor to Dillenburg in 1707, was made a theological professor at Herborn in 1709, held a 
professorship at Marburg 1721-1722, and then returned to Herborn, where as professor, and 
later as holding also the office of superintendent of the church of Nassau, he continued to 
exert a great influence for good until his death, in 1753. 

tHe was born in Dillenburg, January 26, 1712. He attained renown in oriental and 
rabbinical literature. In 1745 he became first pastor and professor at Herborn. His lectures 
extended over a wide range of subjects. 



EARLY LIFE OF OTTERBEIN 


39 


men of his time in the apprehension of the work of God in 
Christ.” 

A strong influence also came from the east in the form of 
Pietism. Spener, the founder of Pietism, died in Berlin in 1705. 
In an important sense, however, both wings of the evangelical 
movement could be said to belong to Nassau and the adjoining 
countries; since Cocceius received his principal idea from a 
work published by Olevianus, the first theological professor at 
Herborn, and since Pietism originated with Spener while he 
was pastor in the neighboring city of Frankfort-on-the-Main. 
Pietism, as to its spirit and method, started with a struggle 
after purity of heart, sought through minor assemblies the 
nurture of those that had reached this state; and gave to 
internal elements generally an importance over the external. 
It sought to leaven the church, not to introduce rivalry or 
antagonism. It originated in the Lutheran Church, but 
especially along some portions of the Rhine obtained a great 
influence in the Reformed Church. It was only another of 
those spiritual freshets, occurring in all the ages of the church, 
that, while some times mistaking their proper course, have yet 
made many a solitary place to rejoice. Dr. Schramm es¬ 
pecially was favorably inclined to Pietism. Dr. Henry Horch, 
professor in Herborn from 1690 to 1698, had carried Pietism 
to such an extravagance as to bring it into disrepute. It is 
better to speak of Dr. Schramm as Pietistic than as a Pietist. 
Dr. Arnold, as to the source and character of his tendencies, 
was more a Hollander. He also had a general acquaintance 
abroad, and read and recommended the works of Philip Dod¬ 
dridge. It will be remembered that Dr. Doddridge was the 
author of, among other works, “Rise and Progress of Religion 
in the Soul,” and “Sermons on Regeneration.” Both Dr. 
Schramm and Dr. Arnold took great interest in mission-work, 
and in all forms of active Christianity. 

It can not be a matter of doubt as to what was the in¬ 
fluence of these two superior men upon young Otterbein. 
Neither can it be doubted what was one of the sources of those 
rich tides of evangelical life, that, after he came to America, 


40 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


filled his heart to overflowing, and furnished a new starting- 
point for spiritual religion among the Germans that had sought 
homes in the New World. 


CHAPTER II. 

BECOMES A MINISTER, THEN A MISSIONARY. 


Serves as House-Teacher—Preceptor—Ordination—Duties as Vicar— 
Oppositions—Call for Missionaries—Recommendation—The Separa¬ 
tion—The Voyage. 


^^FTER Philip William Otterbein had completed his 
* course of study at Herborn, he set his face toward 

-*■ the holy ministry. What his exercises of mind were 
we do not know. He surely did not act hastily or 
thoughtlessly. Advancement in the ministry was slow, and 
the emoluments, in most cases, meager; worldly considerations, 
therefore, could not have governed his mind. The venerated 
example of his father, the pious desires of his mother, the 
influence of great and holy men, along with the silent prompt¬ 
ings of the Holy Spirit, would perhaps explain the course that 
he took. 


He first went as a house-teacher (hauslehrer) into the 
country of Berg, a small dukedom lying northwest of Nassau 
about one hundred miles. In the Reformed Church in Ger¬ 
many it was a quite general custom for those that had com¬ 
pleted their course in school and were looking toward the 
ministry to teach for a time in the families of those that might 
be willing to engage their services. Thus they would improve 
their qualifications for the part in teaching that would, in 
connection with their future ministry, fall to them. Some 
offered themselves for examination immediately on their 
leaving school, and were at once constituted candidates. 
Young Otterbein’s modesty, however, kept him from becoming 
a candidate officially until there was some suitable occasion 
for it. To be accredited as a candidate meant about what 
being “licensed” means with us. In Germany, though, the 
educational qualifications were more strictly looked to. Or¬ 
dination was not conferred until the candidate received a call 
to a work that required full ministerial functions. The candi- 


41 


42 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


dates were understood to be waiting such a call. Hence the 
name candidate. It is altogether probable that in Berg the 
young teacher taught in the family of one of the wealthy 
merchants in the beautiful city of Elberfeld. Rev. Nicholas 
Druschel and Rev. John Achenbach, ministers that left a 
record of piety, were at this time preaching in Elberfeld. 

In 1748, Philip William became preceptor in the Herborn 
school. This made it proper for him to pass his examination, 
and to take the rank and title of a candidate of the holy minis¬ 
try. He accordingly passed his examination, and became in 
the proper sense a candidate. He was examined May 6th, 

1748, the Herborn faculty being the examiners. He became 
preceptor of the third class, his oldest brother serving at the 
same time as preceptor of the fifth class, having been appointed 
to the same four years before. Those that had been his teachers 
were now his associates. He was but twenty-two years of 
age, and yet his work was with those that were somewhat 
advanced in their studies. 

In 1749 his oldest brother, who, in connection with his 
teaching, had also served as vicar of Ockersdorf, left Herborn 
to become pastor at Fleisbach, and now Philip William was 
appointed by the count’s upper consistory at Dillenburg, 
vicar to the vacant post. It was now necessary that he be 
ordained that he might minister at the altar, as well as speak 
from the pulpit. His ordination took place in the city church 
at Dillenburg, June 13th, 1749. The following is a copy of a 
certificate of ordination, given by Dr. Schramm, when Mr. 
Otterbein became a missionary to America: 

LECTORIS SALUTEM. 

Reverendus et doctissimus vir juvenis, Philippus Guilhel- 
mus Otterbeinius, gente Nassauius, domo Dillenburgensis, S. 
Ministerii Candidatus, classis tertiae hujus paedagogii prae- 
ceptor, manuum impositione adsistentibus Cl. Arnoldo, pro- 
fessore atque primario coetus Herbornensis pastore, et admo- 
dum reverendo Klingelhcefero ejusdem ecclesiae secundario, 
ut vicariam in ccetu Ockersdorpiano praestaret opem, 13 Junii, 

1749, ordinationis a me impetravit axioma. Quod his ad ejus 
requisitionem testor, et dilecto meo quondam auditori in 
peregrinas abiturienti oras, fausta quaevis prosperumque iter 


MINISTER AND MISSIONARY 


43 


ex animo precor, constantis mei adversus eum adfectus moni- 
mentum. 

Joh. Henricus Scmrammius, 

Signum Theologia Doctor et Ecclesiarum Nassauicarum Superintended. 

Herbornae, III Calendas Martias, 1752.* 

TRANSLATION. 

To the Reader , Greeting :— 

The reverend and very learned young man, Philip William 
Otterbein, from Dillenburg, in Nassau, a candidate of the holy 
ministry, and a teacher of the third class in this school, re¬ 
ceived of me, assisted by Cl. t Arnold, professor and first pastor 
of the congregation at Herborn, and by the very Rev. Klingel- 
hoefer, second pastor of the same church, on the 13th of June, 
1749,—the rite of ordination that he might perform the func¬ 
tions of vicar in the congregation at Ockersdorf. This I 
certify at his request; and to my much esteemed former hearer, 
who is now about to emigrate to foreign shores, I earnestly 
wish all good fortune and a prosperous voyage, and subscribe 
this letter as a testimonial of my never-failing affection towards 
him. 

John Henry Schramm, 

Seal. Doctor of Theology, and Superintendent of the Church of Nassau. 

Herborn, February 28, 1752. 

In Herborn there was but one church, but there were two 
pastors, Dr. Arnold being first pastor, and Rev. John Henry 
Klingelhoefer second pastor. Ockersdorf was a village with a 
population of two hundred, and situated about twenty min¬ 
utes' walk north of Herborn. About ten minutes' walk to the 
right of Ockersdorf was Burg, a village of two hundred and 
fifty inhabitants. The churches in these villages were con¬ 
nected with the Herborn church, and were under the special 
direction of the second pastor. Mr. Otterbein was to preach 
at Ockersdorf once each Sabbath, on the first Wednesday of 
each month, and on festival days, and was to hold a weekly 
prayer-meeting. A stated prayer-meeting at that time was 

*The original copy of this letter was handed to Rev. John Hildt, by Mr. Otterbein, near 
the close of his life, and by Mr. Hildt placed in the United Brethren publishing house, where 
it is still preserved. 

t“Cl.” here stands as an abbreviation for Clarissimus, a title often prefixed to the names 
of German professors. The term means “most illustrious." The title might be rendered. 
“His Eminence." 



44 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


almost without example. He often preached also at Burg; 
likewise it was a part of his duty frequently to preach at 
Herborn. His preaching at Herborn seems to have been con¬ 
nected with the service that he owed the second pastor, as 
well as with his position as preceptor. 

During this time he also taught his sister and younger 
brothers at home. After the departure of his oldest brother he 
became the head of the family. The amounts that he received 
as preceptor and vicar enabled him, in considerable part, to 
provide for his mother and the younger members of the family, 
and to assist his younger brothers in their education. We may 
be sure that the oldest brother did not cease to contribute his 
part toward the family maintenance. What a beautiful 
picture we have here of family interest and devotedness! 

But Mr. Otterbein’s sailing was not all smooth. It was 
at this time and in these circumstances that the occurrences 
given by Rev. H. G. Spayth took place: “The zeal, the devo¬ 
tion, and the earnestness with which he met his new duties 
surprised his friends and astonished his hearers. In reproof he 
spared neither rank nor class. * * * Opposition and clamor, 
however, had the tendency to add force to his arguments in 
directing his hearers from a cold formality to the life and power 
of our holy religion. To witness the good impressions made on 
some was encouraging. But with this came also fiery trials and 
heavy exercises of mind.” When the authorities were “pri¬ 
vately solicited to arrest his preaching for a season,” his mother 
said to him: “Ah, William, I expected this, and give you joy. 
This place is too narrow for you, my son; they will not receive 
you here; you will find your work elsewhere.” She was often 
heard to say, “My William will have to be a missionary; he is 
so frank, so open, so natural, so prophet-like.”* 

The opposition may have been at Ockersdorf, or at Burg, 
or at Herborn; or it may have been at all of these places, at 
any one or all of which his mother could have been a regular 

*See Spayth’s History of the United Brethren in Christ, pp. 19 and 20. While this 
account bears evidence of general correctness in its facts, it yet fails to recognize the extremes 
that existed in the church,—the genuine and enlightened Christianity on the one side, and the 
laxness and irreligion that were comprehended on the other. 



MINISTER AND MISSIONARY 


45 


hearer. The condition of religion in Nassau at that time was 
low. Among the students at Herborn there was not always 
the most becoming deportment. Amidst all of the encourage¬ 
ments to study, some were idle and troublesome. The second 
pastor was extremely sensitive, and disposed to bring charges 
against his co-workers. Mr. Otterbein, on his part, was 
doubtless as well qualified, at this time, to give the law to 
loose-livers and careless church-members, as ever afterward. 
If he met with oppositions, so did Edwards and Wesley, and 
from similar causes. But the only authority that could put a 
restraint upon the young preacher was that that had appointed 
him. It is not likely that his ministrations were even tem¬ 
porarily interrupted. It is certain that he continued in his 
double capacity as vicar and preceptor until he became a 
missionary. 

We now approach the period of Mr. Otterbein's embarka¬ 
tion as a missionary. In 1746, Rev. Michael Schlatter, of St. 
Gall, Switzerland, had gone under the auspices of the synods of 
North and South Holland as a missionary to the German 
Reformed emigrants in Pennsylvania. Owing to the general 
poverty and distress in Germany, especially in those districts 
where the Reformed faith was predominent, the Germans were 
not able to help their brethren in the far-off provinces of 
the New World. At this time—let it always be spoken to their 
praise—the Hollanders undertook to assist the spiritually 
destitute and financially helpless Germans in America. After 
five years of labor in America, Mr. Schlatter went to Europe 
and presented himself before the classis of Amsterdam, to 
which had been committed the supervision both of the Dutch 
and German work in America, and asked for further assistance 
in money and in missionaries. He received a favorable hearing 
and was sent on to Germany and Switzerland to enlist further 
sympathy and much needed cooperation. He was especially 
to secure six young men as missionaries, the expense of sending 
whom was pledged by the general church of Holland. Mr. 
Schlatter applied at Herborn for these recruits, and met with 
hearty assistance from Drs. Schramm and Arnold. 


46 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Under date of February 25th, 1752, Dr. Schramm wrote 
in the record of the Herborn academy, as follows: “Rev. 
Schlatter handed me the list of candidates whom he desires to 
take along with him to Pennsylvania, and prays that we give 
them a general academical testimonial. Shall they have such?” 

The second professor of theology, Dr. John E. Rau, wrote 
under the question: “Yes, I hope there is no one that would 
not rather see the ministers desiring this recommendation ad¬ 
vanced to work in a foreign land than in their home country.” 

Though the young ministers were spoken of in a general 
way as candidates, the preceptor, Philip William Otterbein, 
was one of the volunteers. 

The reader will not be displeased to find given here in full 
the testimonial given to Mr. Otterbein, as drawn up in behalf 
of the faculty at Herborn, by Dr. Valentine Arnold. The 
following is the testimonial: 

L. S.:— 

Inhaber dieses, der Wohl-Ehrwuerdige und Hochgelehrte 
Herr, HI. Philippe Wilhelm Otterbein, ordinirter Candidatus 
S. Ministerii, bisheriger Praeceptor am hiesigen Paedagogeo 
und nun berufener Prediger in Pensylvanien, ist am 4ten 
Juni, morgens zwischen 2 und 3 Uhr im Jahre 1726 zu Dillen- 
burg, von ehrlichen, und der Evangelisch Reformirten Kirche 
zugethanen Eltern gebohren, und am 6ten dito zur HI. Taufe 
gebracht worden. Sein HI. Vater ist gewesen der weyl. Hoch- 
wohl Ehrwuerdige und Hochgelehrte Herr, HI. Johann Daniel 
Otterbein, ehedem wohlmerirter Rector der Lateinischen 
Schule daselbst, nachgehends aber treufleissiger Prediger bei 
deren Gemeinde Frohnhausen und Wissenbach, welcher am 
16ten Nov., 1742, das Zeitliche mit dem Ewigen verwechselt. 
Die Frau Mutter ist die Hoch-Edle und tugendreiche Frau, 
Frau Wilhelmine Henriette, so als Wittwe noch Dato am 

Leben ist. Sie war eine geborne -. Taufzeuge 

war HI. Philippe Wilhelm Keller, Hochfuerstl. Nassau 
Dillenburgischer Kuechenmeister, als naher Anverwandter. 
Sr. Wohl-Ehrwuerden ist in der Reformirten Christl. Re¬ 
ligion wohl erzogen, und hierauf zum Mitglied dieser Kirche 
angenommen worden, hat auch jeder Zeit einen ehrbaren, 
frommen und christlichen Wandel gefuehret, und nicht nur 
mit vielfaeltigem Predigen und treuer Verkuendigung des 
goettl. Wortes, so wohl in diser Stadt, als auf einem nahe- 
gelegenen hierher gehoerigen Dorfe (wo er als Vicarius den 



MINISTER AND MISSIONARY 


47 


hi. Dienst eine geraume Zeitlang versehen) und an andern 
Orten mehr geschehen, sondern auch mit seinem gottseligen 
Leben die Gemeinden erbaut. Weshalben wir nicht zweifeln, 
er werde auch der fuer Ihn bestimmten Gemeinde in Pennsyl- 
vanien treulich und fruchtbarlich vorstehen. Wie wir Ihn 
denn zu dem Ende des Allmaechtigen Schutz und Geleite in- 
bruenstig anempfehlen und Ihm zu dem wichtigen Werk, wozu 
Er berufen worden, und sich so bereitfertig finden lassen, viele 
Gnade von Oben, und die reichsten goettl. Segen von Grund 
der Seelen anwuenschen. So geschehen, Herborn, im Fuer- 
stenthum Nassau-Dillenburg, den 26ten Februar, 1752. 

V. Arnold, 

Professor und erster Prediger daselbsten. 

TRANSLATION. 

To the Reader , Greeting :— 

The bearer of this, the truly reverend and very learned 
Mr. Philip William Otterbein, an ordained candidate of the 
holy ministry, hitherto preceptor in this psedagogium, and now 
called as a preacher to Pennsylvania, was born June 4,* 1726, 
in the morning between two and three o'clock, at Dillenburg, 
of honorable parents belonging to the Evangelical Reformed 
Church, and was baptized June 6. His father was the right 
reverend and very learned Mr. John Daniel Otterbein, formerly 
the highly esteemed rector of the Latin school at Dillenburg, 
but afterwards a faithful, zealous preacher to the congrega¬ 
tions at Frohnhausen and Wissenbach, and who departed 
from time into eternity, November 16,** 1742. His mother 
is the right noble and very virtuous woman, Wilhelmina Hen¬ 
rietta, her maiden name being-.f She is alive at 

this time as a widow. His godfather was Mr. Philip William 
Keller, steward to the court of Nassau-Dillenburg, who was a 
near relative. The truly reverend Philip William Otterbein 
was well reared in the Reformed Christian religion, and then 
received as a member of this church. He has always lived an 
honest, pious, and Christian life; and not only by much preach¬ 
ing and faithful declaring of the word of God in this city, as 
also at a near affiliating town where he has been vicar for a 
considerable time, and at other places, but also by his godly 
life, has he built up the church. Wherefore we do not doubt 
that he will faithfully and fruitfully serve the church in Penn¬ 
sylvania, to which he has been called. Therefore, to this end, 
we commend him to the protection of the Almighty, whose 

♦This is the date to which attention has already been called. 

**Mr. Cuno gives November 14 as the date. 

fThis blank has been referred to. 




48 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


care and leading we pray upon him; and we pray that he may 
give him much grace from above, and the richest divine bless¬ 
ing in the work to which he has been called, and to which he 
was so willing to go, and we wish him from the bottom of our 
souls success. So done at Herborn, in the principality of 
Nassau-Dillenburg, February 26, 1752. 

V. Arnold, 

Professor and First Pastor. 

The time for the trial of the mother's faith had come. 
She had thought of a mission-field for her son, but when her 
thought seemed to be taking the form of a fact, her motherly 
heart began to sink. “She hastened to her closet, and after 
being relieved by tears and prayer she returned strengthened, 
and taking her William by the hand and pressing that hand to 
her bosom she said, 'Go; the Lord bless thee and keep thee. 
The Lord cause his face to shine upon thee and with much 
grace direct thy steps. On earth I may not see thy face again— 
but go.' ”* What tenderness, and yet what composure and 
strength! Much more was evinced than mere submission. 

Immediately on the resignation of Philip William Otter- 
bein as preceptor, his brother John Charles obtained a place as 
preceptor in the Herborn school. From this time forward the 
mother had her home with him. 

Mr. Schlatter with his band of young ministers went first 
to Holland, where they were to receive their outfit and take 
passage. One of the six, however, like John Mark, declined to 
go to the “work." Yielding to the entreaties of his mother, he 
shrunk from the mission-field. His place was at once taken by 
a young man from Berg, who with his wife joined the company 
in Holland. The fellow-missionaries of Mr. Otterbein were 
William Stoy, John Waldschmidt, Theodore Frankenfeld, 
John Casper Rubel, and John Jacob Wissler, the candidate 
from Berg. At the Hague the young men passed their exam¬ 
ination, approved themselves by preaching trial sermons, and 
were solemnly consecrated to mission-work, those that had not 
been ordained receiving also ordination. 


♦Spayth’s History, p. 21. 



MINISTER AND MISSIONARY 


49 


The missionaries were to be “orthodox, learned, pious, and 
of humble disposition; diligent, sound in body, and eagerly 
desirous after, not earthly but heavenly treasures, especially 
the salvation of immortal souls.” Besides perquisites, and the 
amounts, generally ranging between eighty and one hundred 
and fifty dollars, that the fields in America might supply, they 
were to receive from Holland a stipend of “forty or fifty Belgic 
florins”—from sixteen to twenty dollars. The perquisites 
would perhaps be small fees for marriages and funerals, and 
house and fuel free. The method of apportioning the money re¬ 
ceived from Holland was soon changed, and, as a result, some 
of the missionaries received from that source alone, but for a 
short time however, nearly one hundred dollars. The church 
in Holland had also incidental expenses to meet, amounting to 
thousands of dollars. But from Switzerland, the Palatinate, 
and even England, generous contributions came. 

It is not easy to estimate the enthusiasm and steady de¬ 
votion of the Hollanders in this disinterested work. They were 
already assisting more than one hundred needy churches 
in Europe, besides supporting a number of missionaries in the 
East Indies and elsewhere. At the same time, however, they 
expected the churches that they assisted to imitate the strict 
Calvinism of Holland itself. When the first help was rendered 
by Holland, about 1730, the Germans were required to adhere 
to the “Heidelberg Catechism (the Palatinate Confession of 
Faith), the Canons of the Synod of Dort, and the rules of 
church government of Dort.” The band of ministers now 
referred to were required solemnly to bind themselves to sub¬ 
mit to the “Formula of Unity of the Netherlands.” The 
“Formula of Unity” is a number of times referred to in the 
Amsterdam correspondence, but whether the standards as a 
body or an understood abstract of them is meant it is difficult 
to determine. In their own country the Germans insisted on 
nothing as a doctrinal standard beyond the Heidelberg Cate¬ 
chism. 

Toward the last of March the missionaries sailed from 
Holland, and the night preceding the 28th of July they landed 
in New York, the voyage having occupied nearly four months. 


50 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The year preceding, Mr. Schlatter had made the voyage from 
America to England in five weeks. Sometimes, however, in 
going over this same line of passage six months were con¬ 
sumed. 

Mr. Schlatter and his band of missionaries were met on 
the day succeeding their arrival by Rev. John Melchior M iihlen- 
berg, the eminent pioneer missionary of the Lutheran Church, 
who, when the young ministers were introduced to him, 
quoted to them the appropriate but heart-trying language of 
Christ, “Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of 
wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” 


CHAPTER III. 


MINISTRY AT LANCASTER. 


The Germans in America—Condition of Religion—Lancaster—Success of 
his Ministry—Crisis in his Experience—Significance of the same—Case 
of Dr. Hendel, Jr.—Assurance—The Extremes of Formality and 
Capriciousness—Two Worthy Types Combined—The End of 
Written Sermons—Calvinism Forsaken. 


HEN Mr. Otterbein came to America, the full 



group of the original thirteen colonies had had a 


common existence of scarcely a score of years. Thus 


we have to do with provinces, not states. Nearly 
a quarter of a century was yet to elapse before the era of inde¬ 
pendence. Though the colonies presented a wide, promising 
view, and large accessions were yearly made to the population, 
it is yet not so much with the broad areas of the country and 
the body of the population with which we are concerned. It 
is rather New Germany—Germany transferred, struggling to 
strike its roots into the soil and to lift and extend its branches, 
crowded upon and often trampled, yet Germany still—that we 
seek to find within the borders of the Western World. 

The Dutch or Hollanders, formed trading stations in the 
state of New York, in 1614, and after 1621 established regular 
settlements in different parts of the state. They brought with 
them the religion of their country, and the result of their early 
migration to the New World was the establishment of the 
Dutch Reformed Church as one of the earliest Protestant 
churches of America. 

The Germans were nearly a century later in coming in any 
considerable numbers to our shores. Only about two hundred 
families arrived between 1682 and 1702, the first period of 
German immigration. Between 1702 and 1727, forty or fifty 
thousand came. They came mainly from the districts along 
the Rhine, beginning with Holland and including on the 
south Switzerland, and were generally called Palatines, a very 


51 


52 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


large proportion of them coming from the Palatinate, an im¬ 
portant country of the middle Rhine. As with the English 
settlers in America, the cause that led them to leave their 
homes was religious persecution and political oppression. The 
cruel and ambitious schemes of the powerful Louis XIV of 
France, and the calamities of the western provinces of Ger¬ 
many during the reign of that unprincipled monarch, were, 
in many cases, the direct cause. Louis was the persecutor of 
the Huguenots of France and the enemy of the Protestants of 
the Netherlands. In 1674 he ordered the devastation of the 
Palatinate. The greatest of calamities seemed to fall upon 
the common Protestantism of Europe in 1685. In that year 
James II—Stewart and Catholic—became king of England, 
Louis XIV revoked the edict of Nantes, and a Catholic be¬ 
came elector of the Palatinate, a country almost wholly 
Protestant. In the circumstances of the change in the Palat¬ 
inate, too, Louis contrived a pretext for claiming the country 
for France. By his orders the Palatinate was devastated a 
second time in 1688, and again in 1693. Is it any wonder that 
from the wretched provinces of the Rhine there were many 
that sought in a strange land the rights and blessings that 
were denied them at home? 

The Mennonites in Switzerland were persecuted by the 
Reformed and Catholics alike; and many of them, after a 
temporary residence in Germany, sought an asylum in America. 
By the bounty of England, some of the distressed Palatines 
were sent to Ireland and others to America. The great avenue 
for the oppressed Germans and Swiss was through Holland, 
which for over a century had afforded a generous refuge for 
those that were persecuted for conscience's sake. The German 
refugees almost all sailed from some port in Holland. To 
supply every feature in the picture of the general oppression, 
it needs only to be said that even the tolerant and generous 
Hollanders could not permit the Lutherans that had sought 
homes in Holland, but who differed from them on the tenet of 
Calvinism, to live peaceably among them. From the general 
oppression and discontent it is easy to see that large numbers 
would flock to the New World. 


MINISTRY AT LANCASTER 


53 


The German settlements extended from the Carolinas to 
New York. Scattered settlements existed also far beyond 
the>e limits. The great majority of Germans, however, sought 
homes in Pennsylvania. Here they constituted about one 
third* of the population, occupying almost exclusively some 
parts of the country. From Pennsylvania many crossed over 
into Maryland and Virginia, though considerable numbers 
went directly to these provinces. 

In 1751 it was estimated that in Pennsylvania there was 
a German population of ninety thousand, thirty thousand of 
the number being traditionally attached to the Reformed 
Church. The Germans were without a knowledge of the 
language of the provinces, and to a large extent without pastors 
and schools. To some extent efforts were made toward the 
supplying of these wants. Their English neighbors did some¬ 
thing, though their part was mostly one of indifference or 
cupidity. The time of many of the Germans was sold for a 
term of years to pay their passage-money. The most of them 
had been at home of the peasant class. 

Though in their new situation they were generally indus¬ 
trious and thrifty, the condition of religion among them 
became the most deplorable. Common observation indicates 
that social influences of a local and traditional character are 
all but necessary in preserving men in their proper religious 
character. The crossing of the Atlantic, or of the Mississippi, 
or a move from the country to the city, or from the city to the 
country, is the frequent explanation of religious apostasy. 
The German immigrants brought little in the form of religious 
helps with them, and they found the least in their new settle¬ 
ments that would guard and nourish spiritual life. In their 
homes in Europe religion was too often an outward form; and 
now in their wilderness homes, in their unwi lingness to part 
with all religion it was to too great an extent a mere dead 
form that they made more or less effort to establish. Their 
minds were hardened by the treatment that they met, their 

♦George Thomas, the governor of Pennsylvania from 1738 to 1746, estimated the pro¬ 
portion of Germans during his administration, at three-fifths of the population, the entire 
population being two hundred thousand. The estimate seems to be much too high. 



54 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


energies were taxed in their struggle to build homes and secure 
subsistence, and the very atmosphere of the New World en¬ 
couraged a wild and reckless life. 

With all this there still remained something in what has 
been claimed as the susceptibility of the German heart for the 
real principles and requirements of the Christian religion. In 
all of the past history of the German peoples, they, more than 
all others have been noted for first asking the question, “What 
is true?” and then conceding the binding force of the answer 
that is returned. Too commonly men first question the wisdom 
and rectitude of the claims that are made upon them, and 
perhaps never get beyond taking counsel of their own desires. 
If men will follow the rational method and first ask, what is 
true, they will surely find the other questions, always more 
difficult, on which many unprofitably wear out their strength, 
fully solved, and the ways of God fully approved. 

Let us now turn our attention to Mr. Otterbein and his 
more immediate situation. After a brief rest in New York, 
Mr. Schlatter and his company proceeded to Philadelphia. 
Mr. Otterbein soon received a call from the Reformed congre¬ 
gation at Lancaster, which he accepted. Twenty-three years 
before this time, Lancaster County, to which reference will 
frequently be made, was cut off from Chester County. The 
town of Lancaster was laid out one year before the organization 
of the county, and soon became the principal town west of 
Philadelphia. In 1751 it contained five hundred houses and 
two thousand inhabitants. Soon after, it was spoken of as “a 
very respectable and wealthy place.” But it was not until 
1792 that the turnpike was located between Philadelphia and 
Lancaster—the first located in this country—and not until 
several years later that it was completed. There was not 
even a passenger stage-route between these places before 1784. 
Thus we see how new and unsubdued the country was. Lan¬ 
caster County was largely settled by Germans from the Palatin¬ 
ate and Nassau, whose character would therefore be well 
known to Mr. Otterbein. 

The Lancaster congregation was next in importance to the 
Reformed congregation in Philadelphia. But notwithstanding 


MINISTRY AT LANCASTER 


55 


this fact, there had been frequent vacancies in the pastorate, 
the congregation being without a pastor fully one half of the 
time. Some that sustained the relation of pastor were unworthy 
men. Some of the best members had withdrawn, and those 
that remained were in a sadly demoralized state. For a year 
and a half the congregation had been without a pastor, when the 
call was extended to Mr. Otterbein. He entered upon his work 
in August, 1752, under an engagement to serve the congrega¬ 
tion five years. He also was to preach regularly, perhaps once 
per month, at New Providence, ten miles southeast of Lan¬ 
caster. 

Notwithstanding the various difficulties in his way, he 
labored during these years with “regular success.” During 
his second year the little log church that had stood since 1736, 
was replaced by a substantial and attractive stone church, 
which continued to serve the congregation for a century, 
lacking one year, and which was then “too good to be torn 
down.” We may as well prepare ourselves to witness the 
material interests that were promoted under Mr. Otterbein's 
hand every place where his labors were bestowed. He was 
acquainted with the wisdom by which the conditions of large 
and permanent success are supplied. 

But he failed not to watch also over the spiritual condition 
of his flock. Mr. Harbaugh uses the following language in 
regard to his general vigilance and success: “Internally, the 
congregation greatly prospered. Evidences of his order and 
zeal look out upon us from the records in many ways; and 
enterprises started in his time have extended their results in 
the permanent features of the congregation down to this day.” 

Having served his term of five years, he was anxious to 
withdraw from the congregation. The cause of dissatisfaction 
was the irregularities and laxness that had grown up, at least 
in part, through the frequent vacancies in the pastorate, and 
that had been encouraged by the influences of the times. The 
method of the old churches, by not drawing the lines against 
those that gave no evidence of godly life, left pastors to be em¬ 
barrassed by the wanton and wicked lives of many that held a 
place in the church. In this condition of things, Mr. Otter- 


56 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


bein's desire for a spiritual church made his relations exceed¬ 
ingly irksome. ‘'He complained of many grievances which had 
rendered his ministry unhappy, and demanded, as the condi¬ 
tion of his continuance, the exercise of a just ecclesiastical 
discipline, the abolition of all inordinancy, and entire liberty 
of conscience in the performance of his pastoral duties. All 
this was readily promised by the congregation/' On these 
conditions he consented to remain, but for no specified time. 

Among the papers belonging to the archives of the church 
at Lancaster there is still preserved a manuscript drawn up in 
the hand-writing of Mr. Otterbein and signed by eighty male 
members of the congregation, through which it was sought to 
introduce the improved order and discipline that had been 
promised. The following is the paper, which shows at the same 
time the character of Mr. Otterbein as a pastor, and the better 
side of the congregation: 

Inasmuch as for some time matters in our congregation 
have proceeded somewhat irregularly, and since we, in these 
circumstances, do not correctly know who they are that 
acknowledge themselves to be members of our church, especi¬ 
ally among those who reside out of town, we, the m nister and 
officers of this church, have taken this matter into considera¬ 
tion, and find it necessary to request that every one who calls 
himself a member of our church and who is concerned to lead a 
Christian life, should come forward and subscribe his name to 
the following rules of order: 

First of all, it is proper that those who profess themselves 
members should subject themselves to a becoming Christian 
church-discipline, according to the order of Christ and his 
apostles, and thus to show respectful obedience to ministers 
and officers in all things that are proper. 

Secondly: To the end that all disorder may be pre¬ 
vented, and that each member may be more fully known, 
each one, without exception, who desires to receive the Lord's 
supper, shall, previously to the preparation service, upon a 
day appointed for that purpose, personally appear before the 
minister, that an interview may be held. 

No one will, by this arrangement, be deprived of his 
liberty, or be in any way bound oppressively. This we deem 
necessary to the preservation of order; and it is our desire that 
God may bless it to this end. Whosoever is truly concerned 
to grow in grace will not hesitate to subscribe his name. 


MINISTRY AT LANCASTER 


57 


Mr. Otterbein's second term of service continued but one 
year. In 1758 he resigned, with the intention of visiting his 
native land. 

Besides the local work at Lancaster, Mr. Otterbein ex¬ 
tended his labors to other places. In 1755 he was placed upon 
“two committees of supply/' which made it necessary for him 
to preach occasionally at Reading, and at Conewago, now in 
Adams County. By a similar arrangement made the following 
year, he was to supply the charge at York, but owing to the 
peculiar circumstances at York, he was certainly kept from 
following out the plan. In 1757 he was elected president of the 
ccetus. To the parochial schools he sustained the usual rela¬ 
tion, and also, along with others, sustained a relation to an 
important educational enterprise, looking toward the improve¬ 
ment of the Germans generally. 

The last place in this chapter has been reserved for the 
account of a great crisis—one might say an epoch—in the 
religious history of Mr. Otterbein. The time for this event in 
his experience was in the early part of his ministry in Lancaster, 
perhaps in the year 1754. This is the date given in some papers 
left by Mr. Spayth. 

After Mr. Otterbein had preached an earnest sermon on 
repentance and faith, a man smitten with conviction came to 
him for advice. The sermon may have been uttered out of the 
cryings of his own heart, and may have expressed, as has been 
the case in so many instances, his own deep-felt wants. At all 
events, he knew not what answer to give to the awakened man. 
His only reply was, “My friend, advice is scarce with me 
today." He then sought his closet, and ceased not his struggle 
until he obtained the peace and joy of a conscious salvation, 
and withal that enlightenment in spiritual things that made 
him, in the years that followed, the skillful guide to so many of 
his fellow-beings into the way of life. Mr. Otterbein himself is 
the authority for the greatness of the change that took place, 
as is indicated by his answer to a question proposed to him by 
Bishop Asbury. Mr. Asbury’s question was, “By what means 
were you brought to the gospel of God and our Savior?" The 
answer was, “By degrees was I brought to the knowledge of the 


58 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


truth, while I was at Lancaster.” The answer, of course, 
refers more to the apprehension of the truth than to a result in 
the heart. Its representation of the greatness of the change 
is, therefore, all the stronger. 

If we would understand the subsequent course of Mr. 
Otterbein, and the differences that came to exist between him 
and many of his brethren in the church to whi h he belonged, 
we must not hasten too rapidly over the great facts in his own 
spiritual history. We have already noticed the impulse to 
practical Christianity that he received from the great divines 
of the Netherlands through his teachers, Drs. Schramm and 
Arnold. Likewise, the influence received from Pietism has 
been referred to. The influences exerted upon him and his 
brothers, and the results brought about, as indicated in the 
preserved writings of three of these brothers, as well as by 
other evidences, were decidedly of a practical and experimental 
type. The early earnestness of Mr. Otterbein in the pulpit, and 
his hearty devotion of himself to the mission-field, have like¬ 
wise come before us. His great labor and success, even in his 
early work in Lancaster, has also been noticed. What more, 
then, could he need, and what more could be required of him? 
The answer that he gave to Mr. Asbury’s question indicates a 
continued struggle after light and liberty. We have noticed 
also the issue of that struggle. 

But what was the character of the change referred to? 
The easiest answer would be to call it conversion, and that 
answer might be, for many purposes, sufficiently correct. 
Popularly and practically the term conversion, in this connec¬ 
tion, has its advantages. But nothing in Mr. Otterbein’s 
language or in the facts that have come down to us would shut 
us up to this as the only view of the case. We can neither deny 
nor affirm regeneration of his earlier state. He himself had no 
ground on which to base an affirmation, and this uncertainty 
is itself the greatest condemnation of such a state. The doc¬ 
trine of a living faith he had heard from believing lips in 
Herborn. It would be difficult indeed to conclude that his 
heart, in this early period, was altogether unacquainted with 
saving grace. 


MINISTRY AT LANCASTER 


59 


The secret seems to lie in this, that with his catechetical 
education, his life as student and teacher, and his early work 
as a minister, he held Christianity predominantly in its out¬ 
ward character. In our day many preachers preach the law for 
years before they become acquainted with evangelical liberty, 
to say nothing of the thousands in the laity that strive to 
serve the Lord long years before they come to know the gracious 
heritage of Christians. Many there are that date the beginning 
of their spiritual life to an earlier or later period, according to 
the particular view of their case that they at the time are 
taking. John Daniel Otterbein, the father of Philip William, 
was by no means so much inclined to a subjective type of 
piety as were some of those that exerted an influence upon his 
sons. The traditions of the Reformed Church were, for the 
most part, in favor of “educational religion/’ We can, there¬ 
fore, see how two different tendencies would struggle together 
in the heart and life of Mr. Otterbein. Those familiar with the 
biographies of those that have grown up under the influence 
of the old churches of Europe, and that have afterward become 
eminent for their evangelical life, know in how many cases 
the contest against the powers of darkness and traditional 
ideas was long and painfully waged. Whatever may be our 
ideas as to Mr. Otterbein’s spiritual state, it certainly should 
always be remembered by us, that his own calm judgment 
near the close of his life went back tenderly and gratefully to 
the period of his ministry at Lancaster as including the dawn 
of this conscious spiritual life. 

If there was an earlier experience, it was yet clearly this 
later experience that furnished the key to his after-life. It was 
this present conscious experience that he ever afterward 
preached as the privilege of all Christians. He believed none 
the less in the outward things of Christianity and the Christian 
church as being important, but he believed with his whole 
soul that outward elements are worthless to those that do not 
inwardly appropriate. He believed that the inner life should 
be specifically regarded, and that while securities and nourish¬ 
ing causes are drawn from without the heart, every considera¬ 
tion of the soul’s welfare requires that every individual know 


60 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


whether the proper and necessary results are secured in his 
own heart. 

The case of Dr. Wm. Hendel, Jr., the son of Dr. Hendel, 
the close friend of Mr. Otterbein, seems to have been similar 
to that of Mr. Otterbein. His outward life during the period 
of his ministry was circumspect, and his ministerial labors 
were not without at least a considerable measure of usefulness. 
The following is the account of the case of Dr. Hendel as given 
by the writer of an obituary sketch in the German Reformed 
Messenger of July 29th, 1846: “Agreeably to his particular 
request, it becomes my painful duty also to advert to the shady 
side of his personal history. In 1842 he caused Bro. Bucher of 
Reading to be sent for, and made to him, as he lay upon his 
couch, an extraordinary confession: Ts it possible/ said he, 
That there is mercy for so great a sinner as I am. I am even a 
greater sinner than was Saul of Tarsus. I have indeed had the 
theory of the Christian religion, but have never personally 
experienced the saving power of the gospel which I for so many 
years preached to others. In my youth I had good intentions 
and lived near to the Savior; but alas! I went back from 
him.’ * * * Mr. B. conversed with him for about three hours, 
when at length he obtained a comfortable sense of the pardon 
of his sins, and joyfully acknowledged, T have now for the first 
time become savingly acquainted with my Savior; now I live 
in him.' ” He requested Mr. B. to make known his confession 
as a warning to his ministerial brethren, and after his death to 
make known the same to his former congregations. His 
request was complied with. The fact that Dr. Hendel made his 
statements four years before his death, and that he did not 
subsequently modify or recall them, evidently entitles them to 
be taken as calm and well considered. 

Bishop Butler’s case is often referred to. After his great 
services to Christianity, he was in great unrest of mind as to 
his own salvation. Nor does his doubt seem to have been the 
result of a momentary eclipse of faith. In some cases men of 
high natural powers seem to be left to struggle in the dark, 
almost as if there were no heaven, that they may become fit 
instruments in w r orking out the human side and human con- 


MINISTRY AT LANCASTER 


61 


ditions of Christianity. Such may have been the case with 
Bishop Butler. 

The new fact, which now became a doctrine with Mr. 
Otterbein, was that of assurance. The doctrine is certainly 
contained in the Scriptures. It belonged to the faith of the 
early church. It was the doctrine of the Reformers. Sir 
William Hamilton gives the following testimony: "Assurance, 
personal assurance (the feeling of certainty that God is pro¬ 
pitious to me — that my sins are forgiven, fiducia, plerophoria 
fidei) was long universally held in the Protestant communities 
to be the criterion and condition of true or saving faith. Luther 
declares that he who hath not assurance spews faith out, and 
Melancthon makes assurance the discriminating line of Chris¬ 
tianity from heathenism.”* While historically it may not be 
quite correct to state that the churches of the Reformation held 
assurance to be of the "essence of faith,” as Hamilton further 
along asserts, it is yet quite correct to say that in the time of 
the Reformation assurance was always implied and urged. 
The last utterance of the lofty-minded Olevianus, given in 
answer to the question whether he was certain of his salva¬ 
tion, was a glorious certissimus, most certain. It is also true 
that in our times, by all trustworthy religious teachers, assur¬ 
ance is held as in the strictest sense "practical and obligatory.” 
It is certain that Mr. Wesley, Mr. Otterbein, and others of 
pronounced Christian experience, did not regard their own 
conversion as complete until they reached the point of assur¬ 
ance. While, therefore, a prior work of grace may exist, our 
estimates and endeavors are to be governed prevailingly by a 
rule that includes all of the elements of a full Christian ex¬ 
perience. This, however, should not lead us to overlook actual 
cases that may come short of this ideal. It was this idea of 
conversion, with assurance in full strength at the first or later 
coming forward, that caused Otterbein to write, "I have, 
however, never preached that a person must be converted all 
at once.” 

The question as to Otterbein's being a converted man 
before his special experience at Lancaster seems to turn on the 


♦Discussions on Philosophy, etc., p. 486. 



62 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


meaning given to the words regeneration and conversion. If 
we reserve the word conversion until all the elements of an 
evangelical experience are consciously brought in, then he was 
not a converted man before his Lancaster experience. The 
term conversion would thus include repentance and faith of a 
conscious and purposeful character, the act of regeneration 
through the divine Spirit being implied, this to be followed by 
assurance or knowledge of salvation. This vivid conscious 
experience, as for a time in the case of Wesley, is often made 
to obscure or exclude an earlier real experience which in later 
reflection may come to be recognized. In his Journal, Wesley 
wrote, “I who went to America to convert others was never 
myself converted to God/' but years afterward he wrote 
following the above statement “I am not sure of this.” At 
another point after an expression of doubt as to his having been 
at an earlier time in a state of grace he added the foot-note, 
“I had even then the faith of a servant though not of a son” 
After declaring in another connection that he was “a child of 
wrath” he later wrote over against this, “I believe not.” But 
the later experience which he described in the simple words 
“I felt my heart strangely warmed” is the explanation of his 
wonderful career, as a like experience of Otterbein’s was the 
explanation of the marvelous change in his career. 

But more than once the important practical doctrine of 
assurance has fallen into obscurity. In the closing half of the 
seventeenth century it began to break forth again in Holland 
and Germany. The Pietists spoke of a "sealing” in their 
experience. 

In England, the beginning of the eighteenth century 
found the doctrine generally unknown, and the possibility of 
the experience, except in rare cases, generally denied. Yet 
since 1667 there had been in England the noted "religious 
societies,” which soon came to be numerous. These societies 
were, after a slight declension, revived by the Moravians. 
They possessed a large measure of spiritual light. Wesley 
became a member of one of these societies, and after his own 
heart reached the goal of assurance he found in these societies 
in the different parts of the British Islands, the facilities for at 


MINISTRY AT LANCASTER 


63 


once rapidly and successfully extending his work. From the 
“religious societies” and from the Moravians he drew much. 
Luther’s preface to his commentary on Romans, with com¬ 
ments thereon, however, was the immediate means of bringing 
Wesley into a present personal consciousness of salvation. 

If our later times have gained anything beyond what was 
possessed by former times—and why should they not make 
some advance?—the gain is in the direction of making explicit 
what was implicit, of making definite and practical by a testing 
and working rule what was more or less involved and con¬ 
fusing. Though the doctrine of regeneration, or conversion, 
had not been lost, it came, in the multitude of cases, to be a 
nullity, or was sadly caricatured, from the want of light and 
test in applying it. 

Thus on the continent of Europe, in the British Isles, and 
in the wilds of America, in the latter part of the seventeenth 
century and throughout the eighteenth century, the practical 
fruits of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity were manifesting 
themselves. Great souls were struggling in the darkness, but 
near enough to assist them were sooner or later found, to their 
surprise, those whose experience could have assisted them. 
They fought the battle alone—yet not alone. 

Of the different leaders that in their respective places laid 
the foundation for an advanced and aggressive Christianity, 
Philip William Otterbein occupied, among the increasing 
German population of America, a position altogether his own. 
To say that he was the first among the Germans of this country 
to preach the truth as to a deep evangelical experience, would 
not be true. The Congregation of God in the Spirit, formed 
ten years before Mr. Otterbein’s coming to this country, pre¬ 
sents a number of names of enlightened Christians. But their 
field and their type of piety were peculiar. Both in the Re¬ 
formed and Lutheran churches there was need of the heart- 
elements to which these men gave prominence. If there were 
presented some distortions, over against the same, in the 
churches of the times were even graver defects. The condi¬ 
tion of the Reformed Church had not been one of peace and 
agreement. Many that had a lively remembrance of the 


64 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


liberal character of the German Reformed Church in Europe 
had resisted the rigid Calvinism that began to prevail through 
the patronage that was bestowed by the church of Holland. 
This rigor in doctrine was also associated with opposition to 
evangelical tendencies. The Reformed Church on its part, 
by confusing a deep and glowing spiritual life with the unwar¬ 
ranted subjectivism that discovered itself more or less dis¬ 
tinctly in the adherents of the Congregation of God in the 
Spirit, and in the Moravians as a body, and by thus opposing 
both, laid the foundation for many difficulties and misfortunes 
in the years that followed. 

While there is no evidence of any connection between the 
Congregation of God in the Spirit and the work begun by Mr. 
Otterbein, there were yet elements that they had in common, 
and oppositions that they alike experienced. Those con¬ 
nected with the Congregation of God in the Spirit were Ar- 
minian and evangelical, but perilously subjective. The move¬ 
ment under Mr. Otterbein was Arminian and evangelical, but 
it sought to maintain a safe relation to sober and recognized 
elements. Yet the latter movement was viewed by some as too 
subjective for health and safety. 

Some have endeavored, leaving out of view wild and 
spurious extremes, to point out two types of piety—the one 
characterized more by the subjective and the other charac¬ 
terized more by the objective. The former is spoken of as 
Platonic; that is, contemplative, looking into the feelings, 
and through the feelings to God and divine things. It looks 
more to sanctification than justification. In its purer and 
loftier forms it bears upon its forehead the mark of its divinity, 
and carries about it an atmosphere more of heaven than of 
earth. But it has its imminent perils and its specious counter¬ 
feits. The other type might be called the Aristotelian, because 
of its regard for outward things—especially form. It requires 
the authentication that comes from a wide comparison of the 
mind's data. It leans hard upon the Bible—the objective 
word. It lays stress on doctrine, and gives prominence to the 
law and righteousness. It prizes the church and the ordin¬ 
ances. With it the constantly recurring theme is justifica- 


MINISTRY AT LANCASTER 


65 


tion—the most objective in character of all the doctrines 
relating to man’s spiritual state. It knows how to deal with 
earthly things and builds wisely and lastingly. It is likely 
to be Calvinistic, by placing the condition as well as the source 
of salvation without man. This type has likewise its perils 
and deceptions. Dead forms, which certainly can do nothing 
for religion or the soul, are the frequent cause of harm and 
offense. 

In the phase of Christianity that revealed itself in the 
general revival-movement, above referred to, the types here 
described were for the first time, to any marked degree, con¬ 
sciously combined. Before, in all genuine Christianity, they 
had existed in “unconscious equipoise.” Though slowly 
developing in their distinct character, and though marked by 
sharp contrasts, they had long been changing eyes, and at 
length made a decisive step toward a permanent union. If we 
can properly appreciate objective elements; if we can take 
Christ and the great facts of his redeeming work, and secure 
as an experience within us what he has done for us; if we can 
make our state of grace so much of an object that we will see 
to its special promotion, and make inward assurance, upon 
scriptural grounds, the test of our spiritual standing, we may 
hope for the greatest advance in Christ’s kingdom. We must 
have the means and securities that the outer affords. It is the 
part of the soul to receive salvation and to know inwardly 
and assuredly that it rests on “redemption ground.” A Chris¬ 
tianity properly combining these elements can flourish in the 
noons as well as in the twilights, will promote righteousness as 
well as revivals and all of its forms will exhibit the pulsations 
of life. 

Let the whole character and career of Mr. Otterbein be 
impartially examined, and then if there should be those that 
conscientiously think that the type of religious life manifested 
in his heart and life-work was less comformable to the biblical 
standard, or less efficient in securing the salvation of souls 
than the prevailing type, let them thus continue to think. 
Undoubtedly some good men did thus think. But if he was 
opposed even by some good men that misunderstood him, or 


66 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


by evil men whose opposition to the gospel and contention 
against him were one and the same, all fair-minded men will 
be willing that this should be dispassionately brought to view. 

In their character and course, Mr. Otterbein and Mr. 
Wesley in many respects resembled each other. They were 
independently moved upon, and like providential elements 
were present in the case of each. In the sphere in which Mr. 
Otterbein moved, the times were ripe. The spell of mere time- 
thoughts was breaking. God’s finger was moving upon the 
dial to the appointed hour, and chosen men were preparing to 
appear in their place. 

One of the results of Mr. Otterbein’s enlarged liberty was 
a modification of his manner of preaching. Before this he had 
used manuscript in the pulpit; but now he had something 
direct, practical, experimental to urge upon the people, and 
found manuscript unnecessary and calculated to trammel. 

It would be deemed ironical, perhaps, to assert that 
another result of his spiritual enlightenment was the casting 
off of any Calvinism that may still have attached to him. We 
know that at an early period he became Arminian in theology. 
It would doubtless be erroneous to refer his positive opposi¬ 
tion to Calvin’s doctrine of predestination to a date much 
anterior to his going to Baltimore, though the contrary doc¬ 
trine must long before have obtained practical possession of 
his mind. His struggle of heart, which was more or less pro¬ 
tracted ; his effort to secure practical attendance to the claims 
of religion on the patt of an undisciplined congregation; his 
determination to place responsibility on the people; his practical 
tendency and aversion to dogmatic paradoxes; his experience 
of grace so freely given; and the stirring in his mind of the 
lingering influences from Melancthon, which had been so 
deeply planted throughout the Rhenish provinces, may have 
been factors in producing the change. 


CHAPTER IV. 
MINISTRY AT TULPEHOCKEN. 


The Tulpehocken Settlement—The Church—Pleasant Features—Stahl- 
schmidt’s Testimony—New Measures—The Prayer-meeting—Return 
of the Social, or Laical Spirit. 


r J f HEN in 1758 Mr. Otterbein resigned his pastorate 
i/l/ at Lancaster, he expected to visit the Fatherland, 
r r with the possibility of his not returning to America. 

At this time, however, France and England were 
arrayed against each other in America, in what is called the 
French and Indian War, and at the same time were hostile 
parties in the terrible Seven Years' War in Europe. Passage 
upon the ocean was thus full of peril, and on both sides of the 
Atlantic fear and bloodshed stood in the face of any safe or 
comfortable changes. Besides, it was already October when 
Mr. Otterbein resigned at Lancaster. In this condition of 
things, he temporarily took charge of the Reformed church at 
Tulpehocken. 


In the early annals of Pennsylvania, the Tulpehocken 
country holds a prominent place. The country was first 
settled by refugees from the Palatinate in Germany, who, 
about 1709, by the commiseration of Queene Anne had been 
invited to England, and thence by her bounty had been 
transferred in 1710 to New York. In 1713 one hundred and 
fifty families went to Schoharie, west of Albany, where they 
settled on lands that had been donated for their use by an 
Indian chief, who, while on a visit to England, had looked upon 
their distress as they lay camped in the outskirts of London. 
Having neglected, in taking possession of their lands, to comply 
with the formalities of the laws of New York, they were put 
to much distress; and at length, in 1723, a considerable number 
of families moved toward the Susquehanna, then floated down 
that river in rudely constructed canoes, and after many hard¬ 
ships reached the Tulpehocken country, within the present 


67 


68 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


limits of Berks and Lebanon counties. They settled among 
the Indians, as it was not until nine years later that the terri¬ 
tory comprising these two counties was purchased by the 
proprietary government. Soon after their settlement they 
were joined by other families from New York, and other 
settlers, mostly Germans, from different places. Thus was 
laid the foundation of an industrious and self-reliant popula¬ 
tion. 

The term Tulpehocken was applied to the settlement 
from the name of a creek that rises in Lebanon County, and 
flowing easterly empties into the Schuylkill at Reading. The 
name of the creek was itself derived from the name of a tribe 
of Indians. The settlement proper began in the eastern part 
of Lebanon County and extended twenty-two miles along 
Tulpehocken Creek to the vicinity of Reading. As the name 
of an old frontier community, the designation Tulpehocken 
was as well understood as that of Reading or Lancaster. 

The church that furnished the chief preaching-place for 
Mr. Otterbein was situated in Lebanon County, about a 
quarter of a mile west of the Berks County line. The present 
church, the third in order erected in the same immediate 
vicinity, stands on the high left bank of the Tulpehocken, 
overlooking the rich and diversified country about it. The 
church is a large, substantial, and fine-looking stone structure. 
The first church was a large wooden building, capable of hold¬ 
ing six hundred people. It was erected in 1745, and, when Mr. 
Otterbein went to Tulpehocken, was both commodious and 
substantial. Mr. Schlatter, in the first year of his labors in 
America, came, in company with two other ministers, to 
Tulpehocken, and preached to a large congregation. At this 
time the people “could not conceal their exceeding joy and 
surprise in seeing three ministers together at one time.” 

Mr. Otterbein’s immediate predecessors in the pastorate 
were Revs. Stoy and Waldschmidt, two of the young ministers 
in company with whom he came to America. With the rapid 
filling up of the country, with faithful ministerial work, and 
with the lapse of a few years, it would be natural to expect 
that the Tulpehocken church would become large and strong. 


MINISTRY AT TULPEHOCKEN 


69 


And this would doubtless have been the case had it not been 
for the atrocities and depredations of the French and Indian 
War. For nearly three quarters of a century Pennsylvania 
had been spared the terrors and calamities that came to all of 
the other colonies by the hatchet and scalping-knife of the 
Indians. In 1754 Pennsylvania ceased to be an exception 
in this respect, and after Braddock's defeat in 1755, no frontier 
settlement excaped the horrors of bloody massacres and wasted 
homes. A long list of murders and paralyzing frights marks 
the portion that fell to the people of Berks and Lebanon 
counties. The following extract from a letter written in 1755 
to Governor Morris by Conrad Weiser, then residing at 
Tulpehocken, indicates the danger of the times, as well as the 
spirit of the people: “My company has now increased to 
about three hundred men, mostly well armed, though about 
twenty men had nothing but axes and pitchforks. All unani¬ 
mously agreed to die together, and to engage the enemy 
wherever we should meet them, and so obstruct their way of 
marching further into the inhabited parts, till others of our 
brethren could come up and do the same, and so save the lives 
of our wives and our children."* 

The depredations, though much abated after 1756, still 
continued till 1763. Mr. Otterbein had rather to contend 
against the desolations that had already been made than to 
face new atrocities. Yet the rapidity with which prosperity 
would again manifest itself when once the destroyers could be 
held at bay, would be a surprise to any one unacquainted with 
frontier or provincial life. 

It has been supposed from some early references, that Mr. 
Otterbein served a charge of two comparatively equal congre¬ 
gations; but there seems to be no valid ground for this opinion. 
St. Jacob's (Quitapahilla) Church, about three miles north of 
Lebanon, was perhaps the second church spoken of as con¬ 
nected with the Tulpehocken church in 1746, but already in 
1747 it became part of a separate charge. He doubtless 
preached occasionally for this congregation; but this would 
have been merely to supply the place of old Father Templeman, 


♦Rupp’s History of Berks and Lebanon counties, pp. 44, 45. 



70 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


who from affliction was unable to perform all of his duties as 
pastor between 1757 and 1760. This assistance neighboring 
ministers had promised to render. Mr. Otterbein’s ministry 
was likely employed more in the direction of Reading, where 
he may have regularly served one or more congregations, 
besides preaching at the church already described. While he 
does not seem to have had as many regular preaching-places 
as some others that preached at Tulpehocken, his ministry, in 
one form and another, took an ample range. 

As might have been expected from their history, the people 
of Tulpehocken had marked and stubborn peculiarities. When 
annoyed by the authorities of New York, they beat the officers 
that were sent to dispossess them. In Pennsylvania they 
were very much afraid of sects and new opinions in religion, 
and raised a wall against all intrusion of this character. But, 
to quote from Dr. Harbaugh, “As is too often the case in their 
zeal to keep fanatics out of their circle, they were not so diligent 
as they should have been to cherish the true Christian spirit 
within.” Just as might have been anticipated, they, by not 
seeking to know the truth, and to nourish within themselves a 
true spiritual life, prepared themselves for the wildest freaks of 
fanaticism. When Conrad Beissel of the anomalous Protestant 
monastic society at Ephrata went into the “dark region of 
Tulpehocken,” he found a ripe field for his vagaries. The 
spirit of resistance to innovations in Tulpehocken manifested 
tself as late as 1829 in a famous meeting of indignant “free¬ 
men^ to protest against “Bible and missionary societies, 
theological seminaries, and Sunday-school unions,” as “works 
of supererogation,” and to assert the rightfulness of “hilarity” 
and “innocent amusements.” Between the shadows of the 
earlier and the later times, let us see if we can find a green spot 
for the ministry of Mr. Otterbein. But it must not be supposed 
that all was dark outside of his short term, or that all within 
this term was bright. 

With all the allowances that have to be made, his two 
years at Tulpehocken were, in some respects, the Galilean 
period of his ministry. Routine duties did not so fully engage 
him as was the case at Lancaster. Notwithstanding the 


MINISTRY AT TULPEHOCKEN 


71 


proverbial stubborness of the people, his spirit had a sufficient 
sphere in which to abound, and no barriers were strong enough 
to keep him from grounding himself in the affections and esteem 
of the people. Doubtless some true spiritual seed had been 
placed in the minds of the people by religious books that had 
been given to the refugees by the court-chaplain of St. James, 
before their departure from London. The principal one of 
these books, a book whose fruits were often met in America, 
was Arndt's True Christianity. 

The following from a book written by Rev. John Christian 
Stahlschmidt indicates the esteem in which he was held, after a 
separation of thirteen years from the Tulpehocken people, as 
well as his friendly relations with the author of the book: “In 
the early spring Mr. Otterbein came to Lebanon to visit a 
friend named Stoy, who had gone to that country with him as a 
theologian, but who now was a practicing physician. With 
Mr. Stoy I was well acquainted, and as I visited him sometimes 
I found Mr. Otterbein with him, and learned for the first time 
to know him personally. He was a very gentle and friendly 
man, and because of his pious, godly manner of life was highly 
esteemed throughout the land. He showed to myself, after I 
had the good fortune to form his acquaintance, much friend¬ 
ship and kindness, for which I also make my hearty acknowl¬ 
edgment. He is the only one in that country with whom I 
now have a correspondence. After I had a long talk with him, 
and he through his friendliness had obtained my confidence, I 
confessed to him my outward, and in some measure my inward 
condition. He took a sincere interest in the same; and because 
he knew the house where I was staying, he told me that I 
might come to him at York, where he was then preaching, and 
that he would then see what would be best for me to do. The 
state of my mind I could tell to no one, for I did not know it 
myself. In the many storms of life I had lost sails, masts, 
rudder, and compass, and my ship was tossed hither and 
thither; but the Lord was guiding it nevertheless. * * * I was 
more than six weeks with Mr. Otterbein at York, and preached 
twice in town and once in the country. I told Mr Otterbein 
that as far as I was acquainted with myself I could not go on 


72 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


preaching, as I did not feel liberty enough. He told me that 
I ought not to preach unless I had full liberty of mind toward 
it.”* 

The author of the book from which the above extract is 
taken was well acquainted with Mr. Otterbein. When about 
to return to Europe he spent three weeks with him at Balti¬ 
more. He afterward became acquainted with Mr. Otterbein’s 
youngest brother. Mr. Stahlschmidt had made, before his 
coming to America, two visits to the famous Tersteegen, and 
had been encouraged and instructed by him. In the onging 
for purity of heart and in the appreciation of spiritual religion, 
Otterbein and Stahlschmidt were alike; though the former 
was not made halting and unpractical by the one-sided mys¬ 
ticism of the latter. 

The condition of the German churches being what it was, 
one can easily see that trial and labor would fall to the lot of Mr. 
Otterbein during his term at Tulpehocken. He could not 
suit his ministrations to the prevailing taste. As has already 
been seen, his spiritual susceptibilities received special quicken¬ 
ing while he was at Lancaster. The difficulties at Tulpehocken 
only served to draw him out in new efforts for the salvation 
of the people. He preached on week days as well as on Sunday, 
and visited and exhorted old and young at their homes. He 
introduced evening meetings for prayer and personal instruc¬ 
tion. “On these occasions his custom was to read a portion of 
scripture, make some practical remarks on the same, and exhort 
all present to give place to serious reflections. He would 
then sing a sacred hymn, and invite all to kneel and accompany 
him in prayer. At first, and for some time, but few, if any, 
would kneel, and he was permitted to pray alone. * * * After 
prayer he would endeavor to gain access to their hearts by 
addressing them individually with words of kindness and 
love.”t These meetings while prayer-meetings, were social 
meetings in the broadest sense. The effect of these endeavors 
was such as might have been expected. Some of the people 
became awakened and wept over their lost condition, and 
others mocked; but the work went forward. These meetings 


♦Pilgerreise. 288-290. tSpayth, pp. 23, 24. 



MINISTRY AT TULPEHOCKEN 


73 


were in advance upon the interviews before communion that 
were provided for at Lancaster, and they seem to have been 
entirely new to the English as well as to the Germans in Ameri¬ 
ca. Mr. Otterbein, however, was not moving without prece¬ 
dent. 

The precedent was not so much in such meetings as the 
“colleges of piety” of Spener, or the meetings of the “religious 
societies” in England. Wesley’s class-meetings, likewise, were 
not prayer-meetings. As early as 1742 Wesley appointed 
special meetings for prayer, but they were not stated prayer- 
meetings. About 1692 Francke introduced prayer-meetings in 
Halle. About 1709 Porst introduced them in Berlin. The 
fact that in 1749 Mr. Otterbein was required to hold a regular 
weekly prayer-meeting has already been noticed. When the 
prayer-meeting was introduced at Tulpehocken, there was 
perhaps not another of the kind in this country. In Scotland, 
America, and elsewhere there had been meetings for prayer 
during seasons of calamity, or during seasons of special grace, 
but they did not belong to the scheme of regular appointments. 
Dr. Hendel, between 1782 and 1795, held regular prayer-meet¬ 
ings every Thursday evening. But in the absence of all modern 
precedents, Mr. Otterbein would have had a warrant from the 
nature of Christianity and the nature of man that would have 
met the case. The Christianity of the Bible is eminently social 
and unincumbered. But the laity became, in the course of 
time, supplanted, except in a liturgical way, in the part in 
worship that it was necessary for their good that they perform. 
The social character of Christianity has had enemies to meet 
from the most opposite sources. John Wesley in 1729 himself 
needed the following energetic address: “Sir, you wish to 
serve God and go to heaven. Remember you can not serve 
him alone. You must therefore find companions or make them. 
The Bible knows nothing of a solitary religion.” The deadness 
of the regular ministry, and of professed Christians in general, 
was the natural result of this most unnatural silence and in¬ 
activity in the body of the church. God meant to bring the 
laity out from this forced seclusion. Under an impulse mani¬ 
festing itself independently in many hearts, often not un- 


74 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


accompanied by unsafe elements and destructive tendencies, 
the movement made itself felt in many different countries. 
While in some instances those already earnest in religion drew 
near to one another and dared, in isolated groups, to reveal the 
story of their hearts, Mr. Otterbein had in the first place, 
under God, to raise up such a people, and then to make them 
helpers one of another, and fellow-laborers with himself, in the 
work of Christ. In the preceding chapter we saw that Mr. 
Otterbein was committed to the idea of a spiritual church. We 
may now add to this principle of his life, his commitment to the 
lay, or social element in worship, and in the work of the church. 

It must not be understood that at this time he meant to 
be, or understood himself to be, in antagonism to the authori¬ 
ties of the Reformed Church. He felt that there was but one 
course for the church to pursue. But in America, where the 
necessity of lay co-operation was the most urgent, opposition 
of the most contracted and vituperative nature was made. 

A letter written by Mr. Otterbein in 1759 to Rev. Conrad 
Steiner, indicates his regard for church-order, and his views as 
to the state of the church. Mr. Steiner was evangelical in his 
views, and was a talented and effective preacher. Mr. Otter¬ 
bein was his close friend. Mr. Steiner had been unfortunate, 
if not at fault, in being the occasion of serious trouble in the 
church at Philadelphia, and subsequently became located at 
Frederick, Maryland. The course of Mr. Steiner in accepting 
in 1759 a call irregularly made, which took him back to Phila¬ 
delphia, was the occasion of Mr. Otterbein’s writing to him. 
The following are extracts of the letter: “I confess that your 
unexpected and almost clandestine removal to Philadelphia 
has not pleased me. I have lately written to you my views on 
this matter, but the letter has been lost; hence I take the liberty 
to write you now. To speak plainly upon the matter—if I am 
wrong I desire to be corrected—I can just as little regard your 
present call to Philadelphia as being divine, as I am convinced 
of the opposite in regard to the first. Then you lamented that 
you labored in vain. What offense and disturbance did it then 
occasion! But has all of this together with the disinclination 
toward your person now subsided? Has the congregation 


MINISTRY AT TULPEHOCKEN 


75 


united, or is this still wanting? Will you not, therefore, be in 
danger of again laboring in vain! Be assured that I wish it 
may not be so; and I will rejoice if God will truly unite the 
church in love one with another, and toward you personally, 
and build it up through your instrumentality. But as the first 
attempt has so far failed, there is no hope for the last. I will 
not say that you should never again have gone to Philadelphia; 
but taking it for granted that you have been divinely impelled 
to take this step, would not the matter have been much more 
honorable to you, if you had made it known to at least some of 
the ministers? It would not then have been such cause of 
offense either to the congregation at Fredericktown, or to 
others. All that are acquainted with the matter, and that 
have before esteemed you, speak evil of it. * * * It is true the 
condition of the ccetus is discouraging. But ought you, in 
deference to the synods of Holland, to have acted in this 
manner? And if the ccetus had resisted their decision, which I 
do not believe, you might then have acted according to your 
conscience and been excusable. Why do we constantly annoy 
one another? Why do we misunderstand one another? What 
will be the final result of all this? When I consider our whole 
cause I feel too certain that God has given up the pastors and 
people.” 

Mr. Otterbein continued at Tulpehocken two years, 
“with great blessings upon his labors,” and then resigned to go 
to a larger and more laborious field. 





CHAPTER V. 

MINISTRY AT FREDERICK. 

Character of the Congregation—Various Interests Advanced—Oppositions 
—Calls to Other Places—Marriage—The LeRoy Family—Death of 
Mrs. Otterbein. 

/ N August, 1760, Mr. Otterbein accepted a call from the 
Reformed congregation at Frederick, Maryland. The 
year previous he had received a call from the same congre¬ 
gation, but at that time he still hoped to make his visit to 
Germany, and so declined the call. As the French war con¬ 
tinued, and as the need of laborers in America was so great, 
he concluded again to defer his visit. In a letter written early 
in 1760 to the synods of Holland, the following passage occurs: 
“We announce with pleasure that Dominie Otterbein has de¬ 
termined to remain longer with us. He still labors with great 
energy and success in Tulpehocken. Occasionally he makes a 
journey to Fredericktown, in Maryland, in order to keep 
together the sheep who were left without a shepherd by 
Dominie Steiner, and to feed them with the word of God.” 
He was influenced to accept the second call tendered him 
chiefly by the fact that the Frederick congregation, being 
remote from other congregations, could not so easily be sup¬ 
plied by neighboring pastors. 

Of the German population about Frederick, in Frederick 
County, some came directly from the Palatinate, in Germany, 
about 1712, but a larger number came from the middle colonies. 
What was true of the settling of the Germans in Frederick 
County, was true in general of the settling of the Germans in 
the different parts of Maryland and in Virginia. 

The congregation at Frederick was formed in 1747, two 
years after the laying out of the town of Frederick. The con¬ 
gregation was made up mostly of thrifty land-holders, occupying 
a wide territory about the newly laid-out town. The communi¬ 
cants numbered, when Mr. Otterbein assumed charge, about 
two hundred. His predecessors in the pastorate were Rev. 


77 ‘ 


78 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Theodore Frankenfeld, one of the six young ministers, and 
Rev. John Conrad Steiner, before referred to. The history of 
the congregation had been marked, for the most part, by ex¬ 
ceptional harmony and prosperity. 

Mr. Schlatter, on his visit to the congregation in 1747, 
said, "I must say of this congregation that it appears to me to 
be one of the finest in the whole land, and one in which I have 
found the most traces of the true fear of God; one that is free 
from the sects, of which, in other places, the country is full.” 
While the ccetus of the Reformed Church received congrega¬ 
tions in Maryland, the authorities in Holland had little to do 
with congregations outside of Pennsylvania. Mr. Schlatter's 
part outside of Pennsylvania would be almost correspondingly 
less. There was therefore in Maryland much less of strenuous¬ 
ness in introducing a rigorous and one-sided church-order. 
Mr. Schlatter was a strong and good man, but acting under the 
appointment of the synods of Holland, and following his own 
disposition as well, he gave more attention to warding against 
"sects," and introducing "order" than to planting and extend¬ 
ing the gospel leaven. In Maryland it would have been com¬ 
paratively easy to give to evangelical elements a decided 
preponderance, notwithstanding the prejudices and habits in 
the way, if only those in authority had sounded the right note. 
Subsequently there was just enough of suiting to the moral 
situation to balance parties and multiply bitterness. 

Mr. Otterbein's labors at Frederick were much blessed. 
In 1763 the congregation began to build a large and sub¬ 
stantial stone church, to take the place of the former log struc¬ 
ture, or possibly of a church that had succeeded the original 
log church. The next year the house was nearly enough com¬ 
pleted to be used for worship. The building was subsequently 
remodeled, and was at a later time rebuilt, but the original 
stone tower, still standing, shows that, for those early days, the 
building was a superior character. In 1762 a stone parsonage 
was erected, the lot having been purchased the preceding year. 
The reason for this procedure will presently appear. 

Dr. Daniel Zacharias, pastor at Frederick from 1835 to 
1874, in a centenary sermon preached in 1847, after alluding to 


MINISTRY AT FREDERICK 


79 


Mr. Otterbein as a builder, added: “Many other improvements 
in the external condition of this congregation were likewise 
made during this period; thus showing that Mr. 0. was not 
only a very pious and devoted pastor, but was also most ener¬ 
getic and efficient in promoting the outward prosperity of the 
church. A few letters are still preserved in our archives,* 
written by Mr. 0. while at York, to members of this charge. 
From these letters, brief as they are, you may easily gather the 
spirit of the man. Though laboring now in another field, he re¬ 
membered still, with affectionate kindness and concern, the 
people whom he had recently left. He mourned over their diffi¬ 
culties, and endeavored to profit them by imparting unto them 
his godly counsels, and offering up in their behalf his earnest 
prayers.” 

But Mr. Otterbein’s zeal and labors did not save him from 
oppositions. Though no pen has recorded the manner of his 
ministry at Frederick, it can not be doubted that his ideas of a 
spiritual church, social meetings, and lay cooperation were 
given a permanent place. Persons that based their claims to 
church-membership on the fact that they were born and 
baptized in the church must have gazed with wonder, if not 
with anger, as the words of Mr. Otterbein went crashing 
through their formal notions of religion. While one part of the 
world have ever been prone to trust in moral deeds, another 
and quite as large a portion, have trusted in the round of cere¬ 
monies and the magic of rites. 

The following incident, the authority for which has been 
carefully examined, indicates the shady side among the results 
of Mr. Otterbein’s godly efforts: “At one period the excite¬ 
ment became so great that a majority of the church deter¬ 
mined on his summary dismission; and to effect it most speedily, 
they locked the church-door against him. On the following 
Sabbath, when the congregation assembled, his adherents, 
knowing that he had a legal right to the pulpit, were dis¬ 
posed to force the door; but he said to them, ‘Not so, brethren. 
If I am not permitted to enter the church peaceably, I can and 
will preach here in the grave-yard.’ So saying, he took his 

♦These letters can*no longer be found, 



80 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


stand upon one of the tombstones, proceeded with the regular 
introductory services in his usual fervent spirit, delivered a 
sermon of remarkable power, and at its close announced 
preaching at the same place on the succeeding Sabbath. At 
the time appointed an unusually large concourse assembled, 
and as he was about to commence the services again under the 
canopy of the heavens, the person who had the key of the 
church-door hastily opened it, saying, 'Come in, come in! I 
can stand this no longer.' ''* 

While the condition of the German churches in America 
is on all hands admitted to have been deplorable, it must not 
be supposed that with the English churches, either as regards 
theory or practice, the condition of things was so much better. 
Only ten years before the occurrence just given, Jonathan 
Edwards was dismissed from his church at Northampton, and 
going back ten years further, we find John Wesley preaching 
from his father's tomb at Epworth. 

Mr. Otterbein's labors were certainly not confined to 
Frederick, though what other congregations he regularly 
served is not known. His predecessor had preached at Win¬ 
chester and at two other places in Virginia. He preached also 
in Maryland on the Potomac (likely Antietam), in the moun¬ 
tains (likely Middletown), and on Pipe Creek. He had also 
other appointments. In connection with his work at Frederick, 
Mr. Otterbein doubtless preached at all of the places named, 
and at others besides, though not at all of the places regularly. 

While Mr. Otterbein was at Frederick his labors were 
sought by other congregations. In 1761 the congregations at 
Reading and Oley, in Berk County, presented to him a call. 
This call, however, he refused to entertain on the ground that 
he could not leave a charge upon which he had so lately en¬ 
tered. The congregation at Reading had not, at this time, yet 
had the services of a regular pastor. 

In the spring of 1763 he received a call from the Reformed 
church in Philadelphia, which he was urged by the coetus to 
accept. By circumstances beyond his control he was prevented 
from accep ting the call. The following letters relating to this 


♦Lawrence. 



MINISTRY AT FREDERICK 


81 


matter, written by Mr. Otterbein, and kindly furnished by 
Dr. David Van Horne while serving as the pastor of the church 
in Philadelphia indicates so well not only his attitude to the 
call, but also so much of his character and spirit, that they are 
given in full: 

First Letter. —Dear Sirs and Friends :—Day before 
yesterday I received your letter. I am sorry for the circum¬ 
stances in which you are. In response to your desire for me, I 
cannot now say anything with certainty. The case is a difficult 
one for me. I will think of it. I do not know what the condi¬ 
tion of your church is,—as to whether there is harmony in it 
or not. I hate strife. It is an unpleasant thing to go into 
difficulties. Hitherto I have not suffered myself to be tram¬ 
meled, nor do I dare to suffer myself to be trammeled. You 
may consider the matter, and I will do the same. I have no 
more time to write, for the person that will take this com¬ 
munication along with him is in a hurry. The Lord be with 
you. 

Your sincere friend, 

W. Otterbein. 

FREDERICKTOWN, MAY 24, 1763. 

Second Letter. —Dear Sirs and Friends :—I have re¬ 
ceived your letter through Mr. Clampffer and Mr. Wack. It 
is not necessary, at this time, that I write in detail. I hope, 
if the Lord wills, and I live, to see you on the 26th of June, 
and to preach for you. Both of your honorable deputies urged 
me strongly to go down with them. It is, however, quite 
impossible for me to do so at this time. You must blame no 
one but myself for my not coming sooner. My circumstances 
will not permit any other course. I dare by no means to desert 
the congregation that I have here, as I must necessarily see 
them in some measure satisfied before I could leave them to 
go to you. You may, if God grants me health, expect me at 
the appointed time. The Lord be with you. 

Your sincere friend, 

W. Otterbein. 

FREDERICKTOWN, JUNE 6, 1763. 

Third Letter. —Dear Sirs and Friends :—I have tried 
to satisfy this church, but can hardly make a success of it. 
I am sorry. I have already told you the circumstances. The 
people allege that they, on my account, have incurred unusual 
expenses, and that they next year would build a new church; 
also that, if I leave them, the church may not be built, and 


82 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


that the present debts may rest upon a few; and furthermore, 
that my going would surely cause disturbance and give offense. 
Truly I am in a perplexing situation. If I leave here I shall 
give offense, and if I do not go to you, this will not be taken 
well. But how would it do if you would have patience until 
next year? It may be that by that time the circumstances 
will change so that I could go without so much offense. I 
know of no other way. You may assuredly believe that it is 
my wish that you were helped. But I do not see how it can 
be done at this time without much censure being brought 
upon me. I pray that you will not become angry with me, for 
I do the best that I can. Have a little more patience. It may 
be that some one will come in this fall; then all will be right. 
But should no one come, I can go, in accordance with the 
circumstances here, better next year. Consider this matter 
aright, and I know that you will yourselves see this to be the 
best. May the Lord direct all according to his will, and for 
the most good. I greet you. The grace of God be with you, 
esteemed gentlemen and friends. 

Your sincere friend and servant, 

W. Otterbein. 


FREDERICKTOWN, JULY 9, 1763. 


Fourth Letter. —Dear Sirs and Friends :—I have re¬ 
ceived your letter. Mr. Alsentz wrote to me that perhaps 
Mr. Leydich could come to my place here. This would satisfy 
me. If this place can be supplied, I am willing, as soon as it 
can be done, to go to you. Otherwise I cannot promise to 
go this year. The offense that I would give thereby would be 
too great. You know this well yourselves, and also how you 
would yourselves feel in the same circumstances. In Tulpe- 
hocken the situation would be a little different, for Mr. Kurtz' 
brother is there and is serving the congregation. I can tell you 
frankly that I am willing to serve you; but if Mr. Leydich can¬ 
not come, then have patience for this year. I will then, if the 
Lord wills, next year, go to you. And if you find it for good, 
I will go this fall to you, and be with you for two or three 
Sundays. The Lord be with you. I greet you. 

Sincerely yours, 

W. Otterbein. 

FREDERICKTOWN. AUGUST 23. 1763. 


The Philadelphia congregation had been since 1749, for 
the most of the time, in a divided and distracted state. “Its 
restless spirit, contrary to the omen and presage of its name,” 
was always stirring up new troubles. “Feud had followed upon 


MINISTRY AT FREDERICK 


83 


feud from year to year, and from one brief pastorate to an¬ 
other/' For a short time before the call given to Mr. Otter- 
bein, the congregation had been afflicted with the ministry of 
an intemperate man. This man, though rejected, had suffi¬ 
cient influence to draw off a part of the church-membership 
and establish a rival congregation. Some in the church at 
Philadelphia complained that Mr. Otterbein's voice was weak; 
but this must be interpreted as meaning, more than anything 
else, the existence of a dissatisfied party in the church; for Mr. 
Otterbein's voice, though not the strongest, was far from weak. 
Though the Philadelphia congregation yet stood the strongest, 
at least the most important, Reformed congregation in America, 
Mr. Otterbein’s regard for a prior obligation kept him from 
becoming its pastor. In November, 1763, the congregation 
found it possible to obtain Dr. Weyberg as pastor, and he was 
thereupon chosen. 

On the 19th of April, 1762, Mr. Otterbein was married 
in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to Miss Susan LeRoy.* Rev. 
William Stoy officiated. Miss LeRoy was of French Huguenot 
descent. In 1685, Louis XIV of France revoked the edict of 
Nantes. Four hundred thousand of the best citizens of France 
sought homes in other countries. Among these the LeRoy 
family fled and obtained an asylum in Switzerland, apparently 
in or near Basle. As early as 1690 large numbers of self- 
exiled Huguenots came to America. In 1754 Abraham LeRoy, 
the father of Mrs. Otterbein, resolved to follow, with his family, 
in this course. In leaving their home in Switzerland they 
passed through some Catholic territory. On their way one of 
the children died; and as the parents did not wish to bury their 
child at the place where they were, they took the corpse for 
some distance with them. Having stopped at a public house 
kept by Catholics, who soon became aware that a dead Pro¬ 
testant child had been brought into their house, they were 
loaded with curses, and a complete renovation of the house was 
begun. 


*In view of the total want of information in regard to Mr. Otterbein'a marriage, it was 
no common pleasure to the author to discover with his own eyes the entry to the effect above 
given, in the Lancaster church-books. Other sources of information have since been found. 



84 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The Protestant spirit of the LeRoys is shown by an oc¬ 
currence at another point on their way. The father noticed a 
Catholic procession approaching, with the host carried in 
front, before which all that might stand near were expected 
to do reverence. This Abraham LeRoy was too much of a 
Huguenot to do. He, instead, prudently turned his family 
into an alley near by, and waited till the procession had passed. 

In the fall of 1754 the family, consisting of the parents, 
one son and four daughters, reached Pennsylvania, and soon 
made Lancaster their home. John Jacob LeRoy, a brother of 
Abraham LeRoy, came to America in 1752, and in 1755 was 
killed by the Indians. Shortly after Abraham LeRoy and his 
family came to this country the parents became dissatisfied, 
and soon returned to Switzerland, leaving behind them, 
however, all of their children except the youngest. Again in 
Switzerland, they soon became anxious to return to Pennsyl¬ 
vania, but were prevented for a time by the dangers resulting 
from the war between France and England. Not long after 
their return to this country, Abraham LeRoy and his son, also 
called Abraham, died. Their death occurred in 1764 or 1765. 
They together left Susan Otterbein about one thousand five 
hundred dollars. 

Dr. William Hendel was married about 1766 to Elizabeth 
LeRoy, one of the four sisters. The family spoke German as 
well as French. The mother, though, loved her French, and 
often were homeless and homesick French people comforted 
and entertained at the home of the LeRoys. 

Mr. Otterbein became acquainted with his future wife 
during his ministry at Lancaster. Five years and a half, 
however, elapsed after he left Lancaster before the marriage 
took place, he spending two of these years at Tulpehocken 
and the remainder of the time at Frederick. At this time Mr. 
Otterbein was thirty-five years old, and his bride was twenty- 
six. A letter written to the synods of Holland in the year of 
the marriage containing the following: “Dominie Otterbein 
has entered the state of matrimony in deference to public 
opinion, which in America requires that a minister should be a 


MINISTRY AT FREDERICK 


85 


married man.” It may be supposed, though, that the letter 
represents but one side of the affair. 

Mrs. Otterbein lived only six years after her marriage. 
She died April 27th, 1768, aged thirty-two years and five 
months. It is not certain whether she died at Lancaster or at 
York, but it is certain that she was buried at the former place. 
No children were left by this marriage. Henceforth Mr. 
Otterbein walked alone, 

“And would not change his buried love 
For any one of living mold.” 

After nearly a half century had passed over him, he could 
still manifest the power of his undiminished affection. It is a 
beautiful tradition, that only two days before his death he 
requested a friend to bring a pocket-book, made by the tender 
hands then so long motionless in death, and that gazing upon 
the carefully preserved keepsake, he kissed it with all the fond¬ 
ness of a youthful lover. We can not know the weight of the 
shadows that fell upon Mr. Otterbein's life from his early 
bereavement. 


CHAPTER VI. 

MINISTRY AT YORK. 

History of the Congregation—Labors Rewarded—Meeting at Isaac Long’s 
—Time of the Meeting—Visit to Germany—Incidents—The Farewell 
and Return—Concludes his Labors at York. 

/ N September, 1765, Mr. Otterbein transferred his labors 
from Frederick, Maryland, to York, Pennsylvania. The 
reason for the change was partly, perhaps, the condition 
of the church at York, which for two years had been 
without a settled pastor.* There may have been divisions in 
the church at Frederick; for the next pastorate was certainly 
not free from them. 

We must not forget that Mr. Otterbein, in changing from 
Frederick to York, had, in the full sense of the term, to move. 
He now had a wife to take with him. The articles belonging 
to house and home would exact the usual amount of attention. 
In going to York, Mrs. Otterbein would be much nearer to her 
relatives at Lancaster. 

York, at first called Little York, was laid out in 1741, and 
ten years later it contained one hundred and ninety houses. 
In 1765 it was a considerable town, full of life and affairs. It 
had the advantage of being the chief place west of the Sus¬ 
quehanna. 

A Reformed church was organized at York at an early 
day, there being many Reformed in York County. The first 
Reformed church-building in the town was erected in 1746. A 
stone church was begun in 1763, but as the vacancy in the 
pastorate occurred at this time, the completing of the house, 
in all probability remained for Mr. Otterbein’s period. 

The first pastor, Rev. Jacob Lischy, who served the con¬ 
gregation from 1745 to 1760, not without important breaks 
however, presented a strange mixture of good and bad quali¬ 
ties—the latter at least in the end predominating. At times he 

♦“There was now a vacancy in the church for about two years. William Otterbein 
commenced his labors in September. 1765.”— Glossbrenner'a History of York County. 


87 



88 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


seemed to be a chosen instrument in promoting a great spiritual 
work; but throughout his course there was an evident want of 
consistency and conscientiousness, and the close of his career 
gave to the enemies of spiritual religion abundant occasion for 
gainsaying. The confusion following must have extended to 
Mr. Otterbein's time. It was left for Mr. Otterbein to show 
that the greatest attention to the spiritual life finds at the 
same time its requirement and its rule in what belongs to a 
higher sphere than human subjectivism and caprice—even in 
God's word. 

Notwithstanding the continued distractions and embarrass¬ 
ments, the congregation, when he assumed charge, was large 
and important. He seems to have had one or two country 
appointments in addition to his work in town. But his regular 
work did not prevent his traveling and preaching elsewhere 
extensively. He occasionally visited Maryland, as well as 
different parts of Pennsylvania. One of the meetings that he 
attended was so memorable that it must be described somewhat 
at length, though the general circumstances of the meeting will 
be given more fully in the following chapter. 

There had been a great spiritual awakening in which a 
Mennonite minister, Martin Boehm, was at first a noted 
subject, and then an acknowledged leader and efficient pro¬ 
moter. He came in contact with others of a like experience 
while on a visit to Virginia, and subsequently, in connection 
with Virginia preachers, held “great meetings" in different 
parts of Lancaster County. At the time referred to, Mr. 
Boehm had appointed a meeting on Whitsuntide, at Isaac 
Long's, six miles northeast of Lancaster. The meeting was 
held in a large barn.* Mr. Otterbein was present, whether by 
invitation or of his own appointing is not known. He and 
Boehm had not before met. His preaching at New Providence, 
during his Lancaster term, brought him to within a few miles 
of Mr. Boehm's residence; yet the harsh treatment that the 
Mennonites had received at the hands of the Reformed in 

*The barn was built of stone, was one hundred and eight feet long, and proportionately 
wide, and contained on the floor above the basement six mows. It was built in 1754 and is 
still standing. The house standing at that time likewise still stands. 



MINISTRY AT YORK 


89 


Switzerland, and the great gulf that continued between the 
Mennonites and the Reformed, is sufficient explanation for 
the fact that they had not met each other. Mr. Boehm, too, 
was just entering upon his ministry when Mr. Otterbein left 
for Tulpehocken. The large barn could not hold the people. 
An overflow meeting was appointed to be held in the orchard, 
to be addressed by a Virginia preacher that was present. Mr. 
Otterbein listened as Boehm unfolded the truths of the gospel; 
as he uttered with exulting freedom and resistless force truths 
that his own mind and soul, through deep pangs and struggles, 
had apprehended. As Boehm concluded his sermon, and 
before he could sit down, Mr. Otterbein, moved by an over¬ 
powering conviction of new-found fellowship in the truth, 
clasped Boehm in his arms and exclaimed, “We are brethren!”* 
Boehm was a man rather under medium height, wore his beard 
long, and was clad in the plain, neat Mennonite costume. Mr. 
Otterbein, on the other hand, was a large man and of com¬ 
manding appearance, and in his bearing and dress strictly 
parsonic. Their ecclesiastical relations were in striking con¬ 
trast. The effect, therefore, of this episode could not fail to 
be of the most dramatic character. “Unable to repress their 
emotions, some in the congregation praised the Lord aloud; 
but the greater part were bathed in tears, and all hearts seemed 
melted into one.” To those present the occasion was, more 
than merely in name, a true Whitsuntide—a present Pentecost. 
Is it strange that this meeting should furnish the starting-point 
for a religious movement that should assume, as the years 
passed, great dimensions, or an inexplicable thing that, in time, 
a new religious society should be the result? 

The great meeting at Isaac Long's has such historic im¬ 
portance that it is of interest that the time at which it was held 
should be fixed within as narrow limits as possible. Let us 
give the patient attention of a few moments to this point. 
Some have placed the meeting as early as Mr. Otterbein’s 
Frederick or Tulpehocken ministry, and some even as early as 

*At a meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in New York in 1873, Dr. Charles Hodge in 
like manner threw his arms about Doctor Christlieb at the close of a remarkable address by 
the latter. 



90 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


his Lancaster ministry. But all dates prior to his Frederick 
ministry are shut off by considerations coming from the side 
of Boehm. Dates, too, falling within his Frederick ministry 
are made unlikely, if not impossible, by the distance of Fred¬ 
erick from Lancaster County, and by the fact that the circle of 
Mr. Otterbein’s labors lay to the south rather than to the 
north. Mr. Otterbein did not leave Frederick until the fall of 
1765, and could not therefore have attended a meeting in 
Lancaster County on Whitsuntide before 1766. We have, then, 
a limit before which the meeting could not have occurred. 

A point bearing somewhat upon the case s this: The 
Isaac Long meeting was some time before the Methodist 
preachers began to preach in Lancaster County, and some time 
before Martin Boehm had met any of them. These preachers 
appeared upon the scene between 1775 and 1780. Henry 
Boehm says that they first came to his father’s house about 
1775, though a later date is more probable. Mr. Spayth, in a 
manuscript address still preserved, says, “This meeting was 
held as early as 1770, and not later.” As Mr. Otterbein, as 
will presently be seen, went to Europe in April, 1770, he could 
not have been present at a Whitsuntide meeting in that year. 
The date of the meeting, as indicated by this testimony, would 
be, therefore, between 1766 and 1769. But there are other 
testimonies. 

The paper containing the charges on which Boehm was 
expelled from the Mennonite Church is still preserved.* The 
Mennonites believe that the paper belongs to a time as early as 
“1775, or between 1775 and 1780.” The reference to the 
“sword of revenge,” with its attendant calamities “very near 
to the door,” would refer to the Revolutionary War, which 
brought such trials to the non-combatant Mennonites. More 
precisely the reference suits the year 1777. The reason why the 
Mennonites incidently mention 1780 as a limiting date is the 
testimony of Christian Kauffman, from which it is certain that 
he was present at the meetings held by Martin Boehm before 
1780, and that at this time Martin Boehm was not connected 


*See next chapter. 



MINISTRY AT YORK 


91 


with the Mennonites. The authority for the Mennonite view 
as to the date of the manuscript as before given, furnishes also 
the more exact statement that “the manuscript was written, 
without doubt, about the year 1775” 

The paper says, “It is a well known fact that between us 
and Martin Boehm there is, in many respects, a difference of 
views; and we have at times, for several years already, labored 
to become more of one mind." That the complaints were due 
to Boehm's associations with Otterbein and like men is evident 
from the following: “He [Boehm] had a great deal to do with 
forming a union and associating with men (professors) that 
allow themselves to walk on the broad way, practicing warfare 
and the swearing of oaths." But how long previous to the 
writing of the paper did this union and the things that offended 
the Mennonites occur? The expression in the paper, “several 
years," is of course, indefinite. But some light is thrown upon 
it by other statements found in the paper. It is said, “Some of 
the aged laborers that were not satisfied with him [Boehm] have 
passed away, and we and Boehm are also on the way to eter¬ 
nity." Again, it is said, “We continually feared what is now 
before us, a division in the church." The evidence of long 
delay and continued struggle is found in every part of the 
lengthy paper, making it probable that a period of not less 
than ten years was consumed in this way. But if the paper was 
written as early as 1775 to 1777, even a less numbers of years, 
would reach back to the period 1766 to 1769. 

Yet we can narrow the limits given by at least one year. 
Rev. Abraham Hershey, in an article published in 1842, says, 
“In 1768 I saw Father Otterbein." Now, Mr. Hershey was at 
that time a small hoy living at home. His father lived a short 
distance from Isaac Long's place. The Hersheys and the 
Longs were all Mennonites, and were otherwise closely asso¬ 
ciated. It is plain that Abraham Hershey could only have 
seen Mr. Otterbein after associations with the Mennonites 
had brought him into the Isaac Long neighborhood. Men¬ 
nonites, in those times, were not taking their families and going 
a distance to Reformed meetings. Also a strong impression, as 
from some unusual occurrence, must have been made on Abra- 


92 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


ham Hershey's mind to have enabled him, even with the many 
references from those that mingled in those early meetings, 
to carry a distinct date all through his long life. We are in¬ 
debted to Abraham Hershey for other points of interest in 
relation to those early times. It is not clear from his reference 
to the year 1768 that the original Isaac Long meeting must 
have been in that year, but only that it could not have been 
later, or much before. From some cause he may not have been 
present at the first meeting or meetings at which Mr. Otterbein 
was present. A reference will be found in a subsequent chapter 
that will seem to indicate the year 1766 as the precise year for 
the first meeting at which Mr. Otterbein was present. From 
1766 to 1768, however, is the closest approximation that, with 
any confidence, can be made. 

In April 1770, Mr. Otterbein made his long contemplated 
visit to his relatives and friends in Germany. As he purposed, 
God willing, to return to America, and as the congregation at 
York was unwilling to give him up, he went without resigning 
his charge, his place being filled during his absence by other 
ministers. The time chosen for the visit was propitious. 
Europe was at peace. 

Eighteen years had elapsed since he left relatives and 
friends in Germany to become a missionary to America. How 
will he find them on his return? His noble mother was still 
alive. She was kindly cared for by her son John Charles, whose 
life was spent in the Herborn school. John Henry, the oldest 
brother of Philip William, was at Burbach. George Godfrey 
was at the important city of Duisburg. John Daniel was at 
Berleburg. Henry Daniel was at Kecken. A sister was perhaps 
alive. At this time there were also a number of other Otter- 
beins serving as ministers at different places. We can poorly 
imagine what must have been the joy of this large number of 
relatives, especially of the aged mother, at receiving back the 
returning Americaner, as said by the Germans, then as now. 

An affecting scene was presented when the American 
Otterbein visited his brother George Godfrey, the pastor at 
Duisburg. As Duisburg was situated nearer the place of de¬ 
barkation than were the places of the other Otterbeins, George 


MINISTRY AT YORK 


93 


Godfrey was likely the first brother met. After the first 
welcome salutation and the evening meal, the brothers, in the 
privacy of the study, unfolded to each other their most intimate 
thoughts. Philip William, without reserve, and with a full 
heart, related the story of his spiritual experience. George 
Godfrey listened with the deepest attention, and rising from 
his chair embraced his brother, and as the tears streamed down 
his cheeks said, “My dear William, we are now, blessed be 
the name of the Lord, not only brothers after the flesh, but 
also after the spirit. I have also experienced the same blessing. 
I can testify that God has power on earth to forgive sins and 
to cleanse from all unrighteousness.”* 

At another time, when Philip William was walking in the 
field with the brother just named, the latter turned to him 
and said with emphasis and feeling, “My dear brother, I have 
a very strong impression that God has a great work for you 
to do in America.” Though George Godfrey was the younger, 
he exerted, through his intimacy and living religious experience, 
a great influence on his American brother. 

A tradition, the line of which is distinctly pointed out, is to 
the following effect: The American Otterbein was visiting his 
oldest brother at Burbach, and on a very hot Sunday afternoon 
preached in his shirt-sleeves for two hours to the Burbach 
congregation. 

After this visit the Burbach Otterbein held, every morn¬ 
ing, a short devotional meeting in the church. When some one 
told him that in consequence of not many attending, the 
meeting might as well be dropped, he replied, “I will do my 
duty; others may do as they please.” 

It can readily be seen that the nine or ten months that 
Mr. Otterbein felt at liberty to devote to his visit, considering 
the number of persons and places to be visited, would be well 
filled up. An indication of the time of his return to America 
is found in a paper belonging to the Burbach church archives. 
In this paper John Henry Otterbein, in connection with items 
belonging to the year 1771, said, “The monthly session of the 
presbytery for the month of February was not held, for I was 


♦See Unity Magazine. Vol. III., No. 1. 



94 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


at Herbom to say good-by to my American brother.” It is 
likely that at that good-by meeting all of the Otterbein brothers, 
six in all, along with their aged and widowed mother, were 
present. The scene must have been sadder than the similar 
scene of nineteen years before. They could not all meet again. 
None of the brothers died before 1800, but the mother’s life 
came to a close in the short course of seven years. Philip 
William was not again to visit Germany, and, as the event 
proved, was not again to look into the countenance of a mem¬ 
ber of his family. 

He doubtless this time, as before, embarked from Holland. 
Different writers have said that he reached America in Sep¬ 
tember or October. But as the farewell meeting was in Febru¬ 
ary, he probably reached America in April or May. After his 
departure from Herborn, he may, however, have remained a 
short time at Duisburg with his brother George Godfrey, or 
he may have remained a short time in Holland. 

On his return he resumed his labors at York. His 4 ‘itiner¬ 
ant” labors were likewise continued. 

In April, 1774, he resigned his pastorate at York to assume 
a new charge at Baltimore, Maryland. His ministry at York 
had been full of varied experiences. In the third year of his 
pastorate he buried his wife. Beginning his labors when the 
church was in a disorganized state, and with a church-building 
to complete, his labors at the first must have been arduous. 
Prosperity, however, attended him in his various labors. 
During this period he made the visit just referred to to Europe. 
Here, too, began, in a special sense, that line of labors that 
marked so emphatically his subsequent course. 

In the next chapter will be noticed the character and 
course of some of his co-laborers, and some of the facts con¬ 
nected with the beginning of the great and almost spontaneous 
union movement among the Germans of America. 


CHAPTER VII. 
CO-LABORERS. 


The Mennonites—Ancestors of Martin Boehm—Birth and Early Life of 
Boehm—His Selection for the Ministry—Conversion—Visit to Vir¬ 
ginia—The “Virginia Preachers”—Meeting at Isaac Long’s—The 
Religious Movement—Boehm’s Preaching—The River Breth¬ 
ren—Condition of the Mennonites—Mennonite Opposi¬ 
tion—Boehm Expelled—George Adam Geeting—His 
Conversion—Becomes a Preacher—His Home 
on the Antietam—Close Relations with Mr. 

Otterbein—Other Laborers. 


y^MONG the people that have not received then’ 
/<! proper meed of honorable recognition are the 

original Mennonites of Europe. They were spiritual 
and subject to discipline when these qualities were 
rare, and still more rarely united. Because of their opposition 
to infant baptism, to the taking of oaths, and to the bearing of 
arms, they were everywhere subjects of persecution. At 
length toleration was extended to them in Holland. But the 
emperor of Germany and the Reformed in Switzerland con¬ 
tinued to persecute. 

The first Mennonites that came to this country came in 
1783 in response to an invitation extended to them by William 
Penn to join his colony in America. The Quakers, who first 
settled Pennsylvania, and the Mennonites had many things in 
common. The first Lancaster County Mennonites came in 
1709. They were among the first settlers of the county. In 
1735 there were five hundred families of Mennonites in Lan¬ 
caster County alone. 

Martin Boehm, whose history is now to be sketched, 
belonged to this people. His father came to America in 1715. 
Jacob Boehm, the great-grandfather of Martin Boehm, be¬ 
longed to a respectable family in Switzerland, and was a strict 
member of the Reformed Church. His son, likewise called 
Jacob, having completed his apprenticeship for a trade, was, 
according to the custom of the time, to spend three years in 


95 


96 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


travel as a journeyman. In his wanderings he fell in with the 
Pietists, and was converted to their views and manner of life. 
When he returned home, his singular experience, together 
with his exposure of formal religion, excited violent opposition. 
The minister denounced him, and his own father was scarcely 
less severe. Having been convicted of heresy, an older brother 
was appointed to conduct him to prison. Not being watched 
very closely, and the way lying near the line between Switzer¬ 
land and France, he made good his escape, and was soon beyond 
the reach of his unnatural persecutors. He journeyed along 
the Rhine until he came to the Palatinate. Here he fell in 
with the Mennonites, with whom he seems to have had no 
acquaintance in Switzerland. He married and became the 
father of several children. Of these, Jacob, the third in order 
bearing that name, born in 1693, came to America in 1715, as 
before stated. He located in Conestoga Township, Lancaster 
County, Pennsylvania. Soon afterward he married a Miss 
Kendig. He was a deacon in the Mennonite Society, as had 
been his father before him. He bought a farm and built upon 
it. He was also a blacksmith, and worked at his trade. His 
wife was a very industrious woman, and, when necessary, 
would leave her work, and blow and strike for him. Henry 
Boehm, speaking from his recollection of her character and 
life, calls her “an excellent woman.” To these parents were 
born a number of sons and daughters. 

Of these, Martin Boehm was the youngest. He was born 
November 30, 1725. Little, if any of his education, such as 
it was, was obtained at school. The early Mennonites, though 
poor, brought with them a few books, and began soon to 
multiply the number in this country. Persecution had made 
them at the same time well acquainted with their principles 
and determinedly devoted to them. Young Martin, being a 
son in the family of a well-to-do deacon in the society, would 
be given at home the rudiments of a German education, and 
would feel the yet powerful impulse of the Mennonite spirit. 
The influence of the church would, in its way, be itself an 
education. Who does not know that nine-tenths of all educa¬ 
tion since the Christian church was founded has sprung, 




WILLIAM OTTERBEIN MARTIN BOEHM 

From the Jarvis Portrait 








































CO-LABORERS 


97 


whether in the line of vital religion or not, from the traditions 
and purposes of the church? Martin Boehm subsequently 
added to the fund of knowledge that he acquired in the German 
language the ability to converse intelligibly and to read with 
some success and profit in the English language. He accumu¬ 
lated a fair stock of good religious books, some of them being 
in the English language. 

He is described as being a short, stout man, with a vigorous 
constitution, an intellectual countenance, and a fine flowing 
beard, which gave him, in his later years, a patriarchal ap¬ 
pearance. 

He was married in 1753 to Eve Steiner, nine years his 
junior. She was a “noble woman” and was justly loved and 
esteemed. Her ancestors were from Switzerland. The parents 
of Martin Boehm spent their last days with him, and from 
them he inherited the beautiful home farm. The father died 
in 1780, rejoicing in the truths into which the ministry of his 
son Martin was the means of leading him. 

The account of Martin Boehm's conversion is so typical 
and throws such light on his relations to Mr. Otterbein, that it 
will be given at some length. He was nominated to the minis¬ 
try and chosen by the lot, after the Mennonite custom, in 1756. 
The account of what followed will be given in his own words, 
as taken down and translated by Mr. Spayth. After speaking 
of his selection for the ministry and his failure in his public 
efforts, he said: “This state began deeply to distress me—to 
be a preacher, and yet have nothing to preach, nor to say, but 
stammer out a few words, and then be obliged to take my seat 
in shame and remorse! I had faith in prayer, and prayed more 
fervently. While thus engaged in praying earnestly for aid to 
preach, the thought rose in my mind, or as though one spoke 
to me, saying, 'You pray for grace to teach others the way of 
salvation, and you have not prayed for your own salvation.' 
This thought or word did not leave me. My salvation followed 
me wherever I went. I felt constrained to pray for myself; 
and while praying for myself my mind became alarmed. I 
felt and saw myself a poor sinner. I was lost! My agony 
became great. I was plowing in the field, and knelt down at 


98 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


each end of the furrow to pray. The word lost , lost ( verlohren ), 
went every round with me. Midway in the field I could go no 
farther, but sunk behind the plow, crying, ‘Lord, save, I am 
lost!' And again the thought or voice said, ‘I am come to seek 
and to save that which is lost.' In a moment a stream of joy 
was poured over me. I praised the Lord, and left the field and 
told my companion what joy I felt. 

“As before this I wished the Sabbath far off, now I wished 
it were tomorrow. Sunday came; the elder brother preached. 
I rose to tell my experience since my call to the ministry. When 
speaking of my lost estate and agony of mind, some in the con¬ 
gregation began to weep. This gave me encouragement to 
speak of our fall and lost condition and of repentance. The 
Sabbath following it was the same, and much more. Before 
I was done I found myself in the midst of the congregation, 
where some were weeping aloud. 

“This caused considerable commotion in our church, as 
well as among the people generally. It was all new; none of us 
had heard or seen it before. A new creation appeared to rise 
up before me, and around me. Now scripture, before mysteri¬ 
ous, and like a dead letter to me, was plain of interpretation; 
was all spirit, all life (olles geist und leben). 

“Like a dream, old things had passed away, and it seemed 
as if I had awakened to new life, new thoughts, new faith, 
new love. I rejoiced and praised God with my whole heart. 
This joy, this faith, this love I wished to communicate to those 
around me; but, when speaking thereof, in public or in private, 
it made different impressions on different persons. Some gave 
a mournful look; some sighed and wept and would say, ‘O 
Martin, we are indeed lost!' 

“Yes, man (der mensch ) is lost! Christ will never find us 
till we know that we are lost. My wife was the next lost sinner 
that felt the same joy, the same love.” 

Mr. Boehm’s evangelical preaching is to be dated from 
1758. Though his preaching was different from that common 
among the Mennonites, no general opposition was at once 
excited. He was advanced by the lot to full pastoral stand¬ 
ing—in Mennonite language was made a bishop—in 1759. 


CO-LABORERS 


99 


Though he speaks of the sudden bursting forth of a "stream of 
joy/' it is evident that at least his confidence in his new-found 
experience, and especially his appreciation of the proper nature 
of his public ministry, passed through different stages. 

Along with the many Germans that about the middle of 
the eighteenth century crossed the line from Pennsylvania over 
the narrow neck of Maryland, into the Shenandoah Valley, 
then called New Virginia, were numerous Mennonite families. 
Some of Mr. Boehm's relatives were carried a'ong by this tide. 
Here the Mennonite families were for the most part without 
preaching. About this time some of the converts of the 
famous George Whitefield reached New Virginia, and began to 
preach a present salvation. With others, some members of the 
Mennonite families became seriously affected. The Mennon- 
ites were in a dilemma, and applied for the presence and ad¬ 
vice of some of their own preachers. This was in 1761. Mr. 
Boehm was told by some that scarcely knew what to make of 
his zeal at home, that as he was now so ready to preach, he 
should go. To this he was not himself disinclined. He had an 
earnest desire "to find the truth more fully." 

A case will illustrate the state of things existing in Vir¬ 
ginia. A daughter of a Mr. Keller, weighed down by a sense of 
her lost estate, was almost on the verge of despair. Her parents 
knew not what to do. 

At this crisis Boehm arrived. After salutations had 
passed and refreshments had been taken, Boehm, in conversa¬ 
tion with Keller, inquired how matters stood in religion. 
Keller replied, “Most of us are doing well; but some new doc¬ 
trine has of late been preached by men hereabout, which has 
caused some disturbance among us." 

"And what do those men preach?" 

"What they preach is rather more than I can tell you, but 
it is different from what we have ever heard. Our daughter, 
about two months since, was at their meeting, and has not 
been like herself since." 

"And for two months she has been at no preaching?" 

"No, we could not think of letting her go, and have wished 
she had never heard those people; and, as we have written you, 
there are others of our people just like her, melancholy and 
dejected, and all we can get them to say is, 'we are lost {ver- 


100 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


lohren), we have no true religion;' and for this reason we have 
sent for you, believing that they would be advised by our own 
preachers, and dismiss their gloomy thoughts." 

“And where is that daughter of yours?" 

“Why," answered the mother, “there you see she is, and 
has not spoken a word to any of us today." 

Boehm now moved his chair to her side and sought to 
draw from herself the state and exercises of her mind. She 
listened to him for some time in silence, breathing at intervals 
a deep sigh. Soon the fountain of her tears was opened again, 
and she began to weep aloud, and said, “Is it possible that you, 
a stranger, know what I have felt and suffered for weeks, and 
you believe that I am a sinner, that I am lost?" 

“Yes, I know this, my daughter, but I know Jesus came 
to seek and save that which is lost; and he is come to find 
you, and to save you tonight yet. Do you believe in Jesus?" 

“Yes, I believe Jesus Christ lives; but have I not offended 
him? Will he not come and judge the world and me? Oh, 
that Jesus would but save me!" 

“Come," said Boehm, “we will kneel down and pray." 
They knelt down. The agony of Miss Keller was great. She 
cried, “Lord, save, or I perish!" 

“Yes," said Boehm, “hold to that; he will save and that 
speedily;" and so it was. She was blessed and all her sorrow 
was gone—dissolved in joy. 

Seeing this, her mother cried out, “Martin, Martin! what 
have you done? Why did you come? What will become of us 
now?" 

“Yes," replied her husband, “what will become of us? 
We, too, are lost!" 

That night was a night of mourning and a night of joy 
for that house, for the morning light found them all rejoicing 
in the love of God.* 

Not only was Mr. Boehm a helper in the Lord's work in 
Virginia, but he himself was greatly helped by what he heard 
and beheld. He found many souls that could give a rational 
and scriptural account of their experience and acceptance with 
God. 

On his return to Pennsylvania, the old orms and bounds 
could not confine his action and efforts. His heart was greatly 
enlarged, and he was burdened with a desire to extend the 


♦Spayth. 



CO-LABORERS 


101 


knowledge of an immediate salvation. He now began to hold 
meetings on week-days as well as on Sabbath. 

One of the important results of his trip to Virginia was 
the coming, at intervals, of the “Virginia preachers/' as these 
lay evangelists of Virginia were called, into Lancaster County, 
Pennsylvania. The houses are still pointed out at which, when 
on their way, they stopped. In Virginia they were called “New 
Lights." In a distinct form, their work did not abide. The 
preachers were sometimes spoken of as “English preachers," 
though some of them doubtless preached in the German. In 
Lancaster County they cooperated with Mr. Boehm in holding 
great meetings (grosse Versammlungen ). Great meetings did 
not belong to the economy of any single body of Christians. 
The name had been applied to meetings held in 1724, in which 
Dunkers were the most prominent, and in 1742, in which the 
Moravians were the most prominent. With these meetings, 
the meetings held by Mr. Boehm seem to have had no con¬ 
nection, except that arising from the general religious condi¬ 
tion of the people. The name, however, soon came to have a 
specific application. At the time of the meeting at Isaac 
Long's barn, a Virginia preacher was present; and as all could 
not be accommodated in the barn, he preached, as already 
narrated, to an overflow meeting in the orchard. It is related 
that a shower of rain came on during the meeting, and that 
this preacher was the last to leave the ground. 

Before the time of this noted meeting, Mr. Boehm had 
made numerous converts among the Mennonites. Among 
these were the three brothers, Isaac, John, and Benjamin Long. 
Isaac was warm-hearted and very demonstrative. He was 
frequently present at meetings held at a distance from his 
home. John Long was especially active in securing the pres¬ 
ence of the “Virginia preachers." All of the Longs were pros¬ 
perous farmers. 

At the great meeting held at Isaac Long's, people were 
present from York and Lebanon counties, as well as from 
Lancaster County. Lutherans, German Reformed, Mennon¬ 
ites, and others were present. The movement was given, at 
this time, a new impulse, and assumed, for the first, its more 


102 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


proper and permanent character. Of course, the antecedent 
elements represented by Mr. Otterbein are not made so 
prominent in this chapter as those on the Mennonite side. At 
the great meeting referred to the different elements were 
measurably consolidated and made to work together. The 
feature deserving of the most abiding remembrance in con¬ 
nection with this meeting is that Otterbein, Boehm, and the 
Virginia preacher present are said to have formed a union, 
with some simple but definite conditions as its basis. One of 
these conditions was liberty in the practical elements of bap¬ 
tism. The historic mode of baptism with the Mennonites was 
by pouring, and only adults were recognized as proper sub¬ 
jects. The Reformed baptized by sprinkling, and insisted on 
infant baptism. There is some likelihood that the “Virginia 
preachers" baptized by immersion. 

Lancaster County is famous for the origin of new religious 
movements. The Evangelical Association, the River Brethren, 
and other bodies here had their origin. Pennsylvania, in early 
times, was in a state of moral ferment, and the country swarmed 
with a diversity of “sects." It is not strange that a new 
movement should be opposed, but, in the condition of things, 
nothing could have been worse than indiscriminate opposition. 
In more than one case, years of evangelical life and moderation 
were necessary to change a judgment that had been formed in 
unreasoning bigotry and spiritual blindness. 

The movement under consideration was in no way de¬ 
signed to lead to the formation of a new denomination. The 
leaders did not know what exception would be taken to their 
course, until opposition revealed its character and extent. In 
different places, especially in Mennonite communities, inde¬ 
pendent conversions took place. Many instances of this 
independent impulse toward an inward spiritual life could be 
given, but the cases of Mr. Otterbein in the Reformed Church, 
and of Mr. Boehm among the Mennonites, are for the present 
sufficient for illustration. The union formed, with the results 
appearing here and there, became more and more offensive to 
the Mennonites; and to those that especially regarded them¬ 
selves as “church" people the offense was all the greater. 


CO-LABORERS 


103 


After the Isaac Long meeting, Mr. Boehm spent more 
and more of his time in preaching. He early appears as preach¬ 
ing regularly at three special places. He preached at Pequea 
(to the “Pequea brethren” of his own neighborhood), at 
Landis Valley (to the “Conestoga brethren” in the Long 
neighborhood), and at Donegal (to the “River brethren” on 
the Susquehanna). For the meetings at his own place he 
fitted up the old house that had been built and occupied by his 
father. The congregations were all principally made up of 
Mennonites. 

The congregation on the Susquehanna proved too con¬ 
servative for Mr. Boehm's rapidly advancing apprehensions 
and methods. His enlarged association with others whose 
history was so different from that of the Mennonites created 
difficulties. There were also objections to his liberal views 
and practice as to baptism. The congregation was made up of 
converted people; but from some diversity in the original 
elements of the congregation, as well as from other causes, 
peculiarities were developed, and soon thereupon an aversion 
to change. While there was no ill feeling and no formal oppo¬ 
sition, it was yet signified to Mr. Boehm that “he was too far 
in advance” for his services to be acceptable. This congrega¬ 
tion some time afterward, about 1776, became the mother 
congregation for the denomination known as River Brethren. 
They seem to have no tradition of the fact here given, and 
they sometimes give themselves a Bunker rather than a Men- 
nonite origin. The reason is doubtless their resemblance, in 
some things, to the Dunkers. 

The religious condition of the Mennonites at this time 
was at a very low point. Menno and his early followers were 
evangelical in their experience as well as blameless in their 
lives; and even many of his later followers continued to pos¬ 
sess a high degree of moral earnestness. But Menno's own 
views of the Christian life were after the portraiture of the 
Epistle of James, and did not bring into explicit prominence 
the doctrine of justification by faith. While this doctrine was 
doubtless implied by him, as it certainly was by James, it lost 
among the later Mennonites even this implied place. The 


104 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Mennonites, though becoming generally less strict in discipline 
and life, still held with relative tenacity to the forms prescribed 
by their founder. These forms, though largely profitless and 
hindering in religion, yet conserved among them, for the most 
part, a respectable morality; though in numerous individual 
cases, the transforming power of religion being wanting, gross 
offenses were not repressed from the outer life. Among the 
Mennonites themselves have risen many accusers, but as many 
of their accusations relate to outer customs they need not be 
considered here. It has been stated that John Herr, who after 
1800 sought to introduce reforms among the Mennonites, 
received his impulse from Martin Boehm. His work, however, 
only led into a deeper bondage to form, and a more dwarfing 
exclusiveness. The rich opportunities that the New World 
offered to the long-oppressed Mennonites, while able, along 
with their wanton surroundings, to turn them for a time yet 
more from the spirit of Menno, could not completely destroy 
the foundation for better things. The barrenness began to be 
felt, and the dearth raised its cry unto Heaven. 

Neither Martin Boehm nor any others that were laboring 
along with him, as has already been said, desired to separate 
from the church or churches to which they belonged; nor were 
they lacking in care and prudence to prevent any needless 
offense. Separation, in the case of Martin Boehm, however, 
was brought about by the determination on the part of his 
Mennonite brethren to remain where they were, and to sever 
from themselves by excommunication any that might turn 
individuals of their number into another way. If it had been a 
resolution to cast out a mere human troubler, we could not 
but applaud it; but if it was God's time to awaken the people, 
and his purpose to use Martin Boehm as an instrument, then 
the complaints of the Mennonites against him were altogether 
misdirected. If the harmony and tranquility of the Mennon¬ 
ites were sorely disturbed, they were responsible. Even one 
poor instrument on the side of God's providence would deter¬ 
mine a case of right and duty against any amount of unwilling¬ 
ness and opposition. Wrongs and resistance to duty have no 
chartered rights. Surely God called and the great body of 


CO-LABORERS 


105 


Mennonites were not ready. They cast out Martin Boehm, 
but did not stop the work. The idea of separation, which to 
“church” people was still below the horizon, was not a novelty 
to the Mennonites. They themselves were separatists. If 
others did not suit them, or if they did not suit others—then 
separation. But the idea, though making itself apparent in 
the history of the Mennonites, did not even with them, as it 
does with us, take its place upon the prow of men's thoughts. 

A communication sent out by the Mennonite bishops, 
ministers, and deacons of Lancaster County and adjacent 
parts, to make known to the membership at large the grounds 
for the expulsion of Martin Boehm, by a strange fortune, has 
been preserved. Its entire contents may be found in an English 
form, covering fourteen fair-sized pages, in a book entitled “The 
Mennonite Church and her Accusers,” by Rev. John F. 
Funk. In the paper there are marks of a long struggle, with 
the usual amount of irritation and misunderstanding. Mr. 
Boehm sought once and again to satisfy his brethren, and 
they, in turn, waited and demanded that he desist from the 
course on which he had entered. Outside of the fact that the 
interests of vital, soul-saving Christianity were in the balance, 
the document speaks well for the character of the Mennonite 
Church. If, in some respects, the paper makes an unfavorable 
showing for the accused, it must be remembered that it is a 
representation proceeding from but one side, and drawn up 
after years of harassing efforts to silence or “reform.” 

After a few introductory paragraphs, the paper proceeds 
as follows: “Now, however, it is a well-known fact that 
between us and Martin Boehm there is, in many points, a 
difference of views, and we have, at times, for several years 
already, labored to become more of one mind and to under¬ 
stand each other better, that we might be found faithful 
laborers in the church of Christ; which, however, has not been 
accomplished, and the matter has from time to time become 
worse. For the reason, however, that the brotherhood do not 
possess as good a knowledge of the cause and origin of this 
disagreement between us, which consists of many things both 
in words and deeds, as we do (although many are not entirely 


106 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


unacquainted with it), we have concluded to write them and 
thus explain the matter. In the first place, in that in which we 
believe that he [Boehm] erred in the doctrine of Christ, he had 
a great deal to do with forming a union and associating with 
men (professors) who allow themselves to walk on the broad 
way, preaching warfare and the swearing of oaths, both of 
which are in direct opposition to the truths of the gospel and 
the teachings of Christ.” 

It is also stated that “he maintained that Satan was a 
benefit to man,” and declared that “faith cometh from unbe¬ 
lief, life from death, and light out of darkness.” These latter 
charges seem to have grown out of the phraseology that Boehm 
became familiar with, through his association with the White- 
field preachers from Virginia. His subsequent course shows 
that his predestinarian views did not extend beyond his un¬ 
instructed and unfortunate phraseology. 

It is also stated that he said that “the Scriptures might 
be burned,” and that the Mennonite ministers laid too much 
“stress upon the ordinances.” Boehm disclaimed all dis¬ 
respect for the ordinances; and in reference to the burning of 
the Scriptures, it is easy to infer what he actually meant. 

On a sheet accompanying the old manuscript it was stated, 
as quoted in substance in the book referred to, that “the 
church could no longer retain Boehm and his followers that 
had been members of the church, as brethren, and that they 
should be excluded from the communion and counsels of the 
brotherhood.” 

The real causes of Mr. Boehm’s expulsion were the part 
that he had in promoting revivals, and his association with 
those that belonged to other churches. The clashing with the 
“established order of the church,” though put in the fore¬ 
ground by the paper, was only an incident, yet seemingly a 
necessary one. The fact that some that were brought into the 
“union” used the English language was also made a ground of 
complaint. Any seeming excess or imprudence on Boehm’s 
part could have been but a transient incident. The reaction 
from a formal and lifeless church is almost sure to produce an 
aversion to even salutary forms, and for this the church itself 


CO-LABORERS 


107 


has its share of responsibility. But Mr. Boehm's course was 
marked with moderation and the absence of wild and un¬ 
governed tendencies. When required to desist from his course 
“he said he could not, but if it could be shown him he had 
done wrong, he would recall." When he was expelled, he sung: 

“O du grosser Siegesfuerst, 

Wie hast du doch so sehr geduerst 
Nach der Menschen Heil und Leben, 

Der Du Dich 
Auch fuer mich 
In den Tod gegeben.” 

The following gives the sense of the above: 

“0 thou triumphant King, 

How didst thou long to bring 
To man the hope of life and heaven; 

Thyself to death, for even me, 

Lord, thou hast given.” 

Though Mr. Boehm's followers were in a general way 
also excommunicated, there was no complete separation at 
the time. Shortly after his expulsion, and before 1780, we find 
him preaching regularly, by his own appointing, at Rohrer's 
on Mill Creek, at Stoner's, at his own place, and at another 
place not named. Nor was his preaching confined to these 
places. His range of preaching soon became greatly extended. 
After his son Jacob grew up, he was released from the care of 
the farm, and gave himself up to the work of traveling and 
preaching. 

After Mr. Otterbein removed from York, and during the 
first part of the Revolutionary War, the direct oversight of 
that part of the revival-movement belonging to the state of 
Pennsylvania was mostly left to him. 

The next associate of Mr. Otterbein to be mentioned is 
George Adam Geeting. He was born February 6th, 1741, at 
Nieder Schelden, in Nassau-Siegen, at present a part of the 
province of Hesse-Nassau, Prussia. His birthplace was thus 
quite near to that of Mr. Otterbein. He was the youngest 
child in his father's family. He was reared in the Reformed 
Church. He received a fair education, acquiring some knowl- 


108 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


edge of the Latin along with his knowledge of the German. 
When he grew up he labored as a miner. In his eighteenth 
year he came to this country. As, owing to the hostilities 
between France and England, immigration, as said by a lead¬ 
ing authority w 7 as “entirely suspended” between 1756 and 
1761, he could have come with no company of immigrants. 
He doubtless landed at Baltimore, and thence soon proceeded 
to the community on the Antietam, in Washington County, 
Maryland, until 1776 a part of Frederick County. Here he 
made his home for the remainder of his life. 

In the Antietam community he was engaged in the winter¬ 
time in teaching school, and in the summer-time in quarrying 
stone and digging wells. It is probable that the school-house 
at Antietam antedated the meeting-house which often passed 
under the name of the “so-called school-house.” Both were 
built upon the land owned by the grandfather of Elias Snively 
(Schnebley). It is likely that it was in the earlier “school- 
house” that the young German school-master taught. 

The community had frequently been visited by the Re¬ 
formed ministers from Frederick. Mr. Steiner likely preached 
at this place. Mr. Otterbein on going to Frederick in 1760 
preached also at Antietam; and here, probably about the time 
that his first visits were made, he had in his audience young 
Geeting. The latter was soon converted, and at once made 
himself useful in the religious work of the community. As the 
years passed, Mr. Otterbein came to find in this German con¬ 
vert what he found in no other person with whom his long life 
and great labors brought him in contact. Geeting was to him 
a real Timothy. After Mr. Otterbein moved to York, his 
visits to Antietam were less frequent, but yet he did not cease 
to make occasional visits. His successors at Frederick do not 
seem to have visited the place. As there were considerable 
intervals without preaching, Mr. Geeting was called on, as he 
was the school-teacher, to read sermons; and this he did with 
evident impression upon the people. When Mr. Otterbein 
became acquainted with the good results of Mr. Geeting’s 
attempts to supply the lack of ministerial service, he directed 
that some one of his brethren, on the next Sabbath when there 


CO-LABORERS 


109 


should be an appointment for him to read, should take the 
book from before him, and leave him to his own extempor¬ 
aneous utterance. Mr. Jacob Hess accordingly did this. After a 
moment's hesitation Mr. Geeting proceeded, and gave a very 
impressive exhortation and address. This was about 1772. 
The manner in which he subsequently acted as a leader at 
Antietam will be given further along. 

On Whitsuntide, 1783, he was ordained, in the Antietam 
church, by Mr. Otterbein and Rev. Wm. Hendel. This ordin¬ 
ation does not seem to have been formal, as it was expected 
that in 1786 Mr. Geeting would apply to the Reformed coetus, 
of which he had previously become a member, for ordination, 
and in 1788 he was thus formally ordained. 

Mr. Geeting was a man of good physical constitution, and 
capable of great endurance. He became possessed of a good 
farm, and everything about him was indicative of good con¬ 
dition. The good horses that he kept were long spoken of. 
He was scrupulously neat in dress, though he never wore the 
customary clerical suit. 

He was possessed of superior gifts. His sympathies were 
ready and abundant. His understanding of occasions, and 
faculty of adaptation, were much beyond the usual. He had 
a voice combining sweetness and power. His method and 
continued attention to books made him capable of great and 
increasing usefulness. In his preaching he was earnest, yet 
deliberate. His addresses to the conscience and feelings were 
always impressive, and sometimes strikingly moving. As he 
was in the first place, and in the strictest sense, a product of 
the revival-movement, there were combined in him its strictest 
moral and logical characteristics. Otterbein and Boehm, 
though authors in the movement, were themselves formed by 
earlier and different influences. The distinctive character of 
Mr. Geeting was apparent in ail of his course, from first to last. 

None of those that were associated with him traveled and 
labored more abundantly than he. In very important respects 
he exerted a decided influence upon Mr. Otterbein; and on 
some subjects, in regard to which Mr. Otterbein has given us 
no expression, Mr. Geeting is the exponent of his thoughts. 


110 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


No field of labor was more enjoyable to Mr. Otterbein than 
that that awaited him at the Antietam, and in no counsels or 
associations did he more confide or find truer pleasure than in 
those that he enjoyed at George A. Geeting’s. We shall often 
meet, in these pages, this younger associate. 

The meeting-house already referred to, doubtless the first 
built by the co-laborers and followers of Mr. Otterbein, was 
built before 1774 near Mr. Geeting’s place. The materials 
were drawn together and fashioned into a church by the zeal 
and good-will of the community. The ground on which the 
church stood was never deeded. The house was a humble 
log structure, but it became a center of wide and manifold 
labors. It was in later times frequently called the Geeting 
Meeting-house. When the first informal society formed at 
Antietam as the result of the revival-movement was organized, 
George Adam Geeting, Samuel Baker, Henry Smith, and soon 
afterward Jacob Hess, with their families, constituted the 
members. This must have been before 1774—how long before 
can not be known. Over the society thus formed Mr. Geeting 
might be called the pastor, though his labors were largely of 
an itinerant character. 

Among those whose awakening, and, in some cases, be¬ 
ginning labors belonged to the period before 1774, were Fred¬ 
erick Schaffer, who was converted during Mr. Otterbein’s 
labors at Lancaster; Martin Crider, the next oldest preacher in 
the revival-movement after Otterbein and Boehm; and Adam 
Lehman, then living near the north line of Frederick County. 
There were also others whose first labors belonged to this 
period, and others still that soon entered the vineyard. 

With this notice of some of his early co-laborers, let us 
turn to the new field on which Mr. Otterbein was entering at 
Baltimore. 


CHAPTER VIII. 

CALL TO BALTIMORE. 

Mr. Otterbein’s Position—The Old Congregation—Troubles—Mr. Schwope 
—The New Congregation—Efforts to Bring it Back—Independence of 
the Congregation—Asbury’s Statement—Hildt’s Testimony—The 
Property of the Congregation—Trial of 1840—Extract from 
Griffith’s Annals—Not Represented by Elders—Import¬ 
ance of Reaching the Truth. 

AY 4, 1774, Mr. Otterbein assumed charge of 
n JYS a new an d independent congregation in the city 
S (/v of Baltimore, Maryland. The congregation was 
the result of a separation from the original 
German Reformed church. The step was a very important 
one to Mr. Otterbein. He was now forty-eight years of age, 
and in the prime of his matured powers. He had been twenty- 
two years in America. These years were full of history to him. 
His belief in a spiritual church, his belief in the use of extra¬ 
ordinary means for bringing souls to Christ, and his part in 
introducing social meetings had not made his way more smooth. 
He was as far from rashness as he was from self-seeking. It 
was not from frowardness that he broke away from the tram¬ 
mels that had hitherto embarrassed his ministry, and sought 
thenceforth to raise up, from the wilds of sin and the world, a 
spiritual people. That there were not converted people in the 
old churches is by no means asserted. It was a fact, however, 
that the notions and practice of the multitude of church- 
members were such as largely to neutralize efforts for the pro¬ 
motion of practical and personal religion. 

Baltimore in 1774, contained about six thousand in¬ 
habitants. The German population, though less in propor¬ 
tion than in many places, was yet considerable, and while 
largely due to direct immigration from Europe, was also the 
result, to no inconsiderable extent, of immigration from 
Pennsylvania, and from other parts of Maryland. 


Ill 


112 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The beginning of the Reformed church in Baltimore dates 
back to 1750. Yet there was no church building before about 
1757, and no regular pastor before about 1760. Both the 
Reformed and the Lutheran churches were for a considerable 
time quite weak, and worshiped together in the same house. 
The first regular pastor of the Reformed church was Rev. 
John Christian Faber, whose ministrations were formal and 
languid, and whose life was offensive. Mr. Otterbein had 
frequently visited the Baltimore congregation while he was 
yet at Lancaster, and before the congregation had a regular 
pastor. A considerable part of the congregation had but 
little to do with Mr. Faber from the first. As time passed, many 
that had been converted in other places under Mr. Otterbein’s 
labors moved into Baltimore. 

In the year 1770 complaints were made against Mr. 
Faber, and there was much dissension in the congregation. 
Mr. Faber, on his part, made complaints against his opponents, 
and also against Rev. Benedict Schwope, who was at the time 
preaching near Baltimore. Mr. Faber and Mr. Schwope sub¬ 
mitted their differences to the coetus, and a committee appointed 
to investigate the case vindicated the character and conduct of 
Mr. Schwope. At this time Mr. Schwope had the sympathy 
of the coetus. In the early part of 1771 the crisis came. The 
evangelical party, not succeeding in securing the removal of 
Mr. Faber, withdrew and elected Mr. Schwope for their pastor. 

Although Mr. Schwope is spoken of by Doctor Harbaugh 
—on the authority of Dr. Elias Heiner—as a young man re¬ 
cently arrived from Germany, he was at this time forty years 
of age. As early as 1763 he was an elder in the Reformed 
congregation at Pipe Creek, and as early as 1754 his name 
appears in the church-list at York. If it is correct to identify 
him with the Benedict Schwope at York, he possibly had the 
advantage of the first part of Mr. Otterbein’s ministry at 
York. At all events, in 1774, he must have been already for 
a number of years acquainted with Mr. Otterbein. 

In 1771 Mr. Schwope’s party bought several lots on 
Howard’s Hill, and so vested their right in the same as to hold 
the property at their own will. By October they had erected a 


CALL TO BALTIMORE 


113 


small meeting-house. * In a position to save their independence, 
no difference what course the opposing party might take, and 
yet desirous of a union, if thereby the whole united congregation 
could be brought under an evangelical minister, they pre¬ 
sented their case before the coetus. 

The coetus made earnest efforts to unite the congrega¬ 
tions, but to no purpose. At the session of 1771 it was pro¬ 
posed that both Faber and Schwope should withdraw, and 
that the two parties should unite and agree upon a minister. 
The plan failed, because, according to one version, Mr. 
Schwope’s people would not allow him to withdraw, or because, 
according to another version, Mr. Otterbein’s, the old party, 
after the retirement of Mr. Faber, hastily chose as their 
minister, without consulting the other party, Rev. W. Wall- 
auer, a man in every respect more objectionable than Mr. 
Faber. In the coetus of 1772 no progress was made. At this 
session Mr. Otterbein was placed upon a committee of supply 
for the Baltimore charge, but as Mr. Wallauer continued to 
hold his place, it is evident that Mr. Otterbein did not visit 
Baltimore unless, perhaps, to preach occasionally for the new 
congregation. In 1773, Mr. Schwope, from some cause, was 
anxious to withdraw, and his congregation extended a call to 
Mr. Otterbein; but he declined in consequence of the dis¬ 
couraging condition of the congregation. As solicitations 
continued to be sent to him, he expressed himself as willing to 
accept, provided the coetus would consent. The coetus at 
its meeting in 1773 did not favor his acceptance, whereupon 
both parties extended a call to Doctor Hendel. In case 
Doctor Hendel should not accept, the united congregations 
were given the privilege of choosing any other member of 

*As the result of investigations made by R. P. Dougherty, professor in Goucher College, 
Baltimore, in connection with the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary, dating from 1774, of 
Otterbein’s coming to Baltimore, some additional facts of interest were brought out. June 11, 
1772, Joseph Pilmoor, one of the earliest Methodist preachers, preached in the “Reformed 
church” in Baltimore, and on June 22, he met “a few serious persons in the Reformed church 
and joined them together in a society.” Pilmoor afterward wrote, “there is now an open door 
in this town, and nothing is wanted but a good, zealous preacher.” From these and other 
evidences it would seem clear that the first Methodist society in Baltimore was organized in 
Schwope’s church. Bishop Keener of the Methodist Episcopal church is a great-grandson of 
Schwope Through members of the Schwope family. Professor Dougherty was able to secure 
a picture of an oil painting of Schwope. 



114 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the coetus as pastor. The old party, however, refused to in¬ 
dorse the action of their delegates in calling Doctor Hendel. 
The condition of things was not improving. 

The following spring Mr. Otterbein was again called by the 
new congregation, and, notwithstanding the action of the 
coetus, he accepted. He was censured by the coetus, though 
informally. This must have been at the session in the fall of. 
1774. At the same session Faber was received into the coetus. 
In 1775 the coetus voted to receive the congregation; and 
following out the same line, the coetus in 1784 voted to recog¬ 
nize both congregations as long as they should “remain faithful 
to the doctrine and customs of the Reformed Church.” In all 
of these evidences of struggles in the Baltimore congregations, 
and in the coetus, we must not suppose that there is adequately 
represented the character of the struggle that an earnest 
minority had to maintain against an unevangelical majority. 
Nor is it to be understood that we are left to the imperfect 
testimony already given to form our judgment as to the char¬ 
acter, in an ecclesiastical view, of the new congregation. 

Some of the points that show that the Baltimore congrega¬ 
tion was confirmed in its independent position from a time 
shortly before Mr. Otterbein assumed charge of it will now be 
given. 

The name of the congregation was “The German Evan¬ 
gelical Reformed Church/' or “The Evangelical Reformed 
Church," the latter being the form in which the name first 
appeared. It will be found by giving a thought to the ecclesias¬ 
tical history of America that ecclesiastical titles may be almost, 
if not quite the same without identifying religious bodies. In 
some cases the only difference is in the emphasis that is given 
to the little article the. The great effort is to emphasize fidelity 
to a starting-principle, from which the new bodies believe there 
has been more or less departure. Dr. Theodore Appel, of the 
Reformed Church, gives the following statement as to the use 
of the term evangelical: “The German Reformed Church, as 
closely allied to the Lutheran Church, and enjoying in common 
with it much of the fervor, depth, geniality, and freedom of 
German Christianity, still retains the epithet evangelical in the 


CALL TO BALTIMORE 


115 


Fatherland; whereas in other Reformed churches its original 
distinctive use has in a great measure been forgotten. In its 
correct use at present in this country it is intended to express 
an antagonism to prelacy and high-churchism.” The term 
evangelical has not formed a part of the title of the German 
Reformed Church in this country; and the cases in which it 
has been applied to local congregations—as being more recent 
or the result of the association of congregations with the 
Lutherans, or as presenting an epithet without emphasis— 
have no force or bearing in the present case. Even the number 
of these irrelevant cases is the very fewest. No one will deny 
that the term evangelical, as forming a part of the name of the 
Baltimore church, was expressive of the most decided anti¬ 
thesis. The name of the church, while in itself not conclusive 
as to the independence of the church, forms a significant 
starting point for our inquiries, and in connection with other 
things becomes itself an evidence. 

In 1772 Mr. Schwope became acquainted with Mr. 
Asbury. February 3, 1774, Mr. Asbury wrote a letter to Mr. 
Otterbein, whom he had not at that time met, but whom he 
already knew through Mr. Schwope, the object of the letter 
being to prevail upon Mr. Otterbein to settle in Baltimore. 
Two days afterward, after a conversation with Mr. Schwope, 
Mr. Asbury made the following entry in his journal: “On 
Saturday Mr. S. came to consult me in respect to Mr. O.’s 
coming to this town. We agreed to promote his settling here, 
and laid a plan nearly similar to ours—to wit, that gifted per¬ 
sons amongst them who may, at any time, be moved by the 
Holy Ghost to speak for God, should be encouraged, and if the 
synod would not agree, they were still to persevere in the line 
of duty.” Mr. Asbury's observation is, of course, silent as to 
Mr. Otterbein's earlier labors, upon which he had entered 
without “plan.” It likewise fails to indicate fully the situation 
of things three months later. Mr. Schwope was even in ad¬ 
vance of Mr. Asbury as to some points, as is indicated by the 
fact that in 1772 he believed that the Methodist preachers 
should have conceded to them the privilege of administering 
the ordinances, and the complete functions of ministers, while 


116 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Mr. Asbury, who regarded himself as but a layman, steadily 
maintained the opposite. 

A direct testimony is borne by Mr. John Hildt, who was a 
member of Mr. Otterbein's vestry as early as 1809, and who 
for a number of years before Mr. Otterbein's death was one of 
his nearest and most trusted friends.* He says in a letter, a 
part of which was published in the Religious Telescope of July 
28, 1858, that Mr. Otterbein was called "provided he would 
consent to be, or become, independent of the synod of the Ger¬ 
man Reformed Church/' and that when Mr. Otterbein was ap¬ 
prised of the condition insisted on by the congregation, "he de¬ 
manded of them three days' time for consideration, at the 
expiration of which time he acceded." Mr. Hildt added, "Being 
no longer trammeled with the rules and discipline of the Ger¬ 
man Reformed Church, he formed, with the consent of his 
brethren, a new set of rules for the membership of his new and 
independent church." The independence spoken of was, of 
course, even as indicated in the last remark of Mr. Hildt, in 
regard to the position of the congregation, rather than in 
regard to Mr. Otterbein personally. 

The manner of deeding and holding the lots on Howard's 
Hill—the historic site of the church-houses of the congregation 
—is also an evidence. This ground was deeded August 7,1771, 
by Cornelius Howard to Conrad Smith, John Stover, and 
Valentine Larsh, the consideration being ninety pounds, 
Maryland currency (two hundred and forty dollars and thirty 
cents). The deed was made to these men, not in trust, but 
personally, which in itself and for those times might not be 
thought to signify much. It was the custom then, however, 
to name the grantees of church-property as "trustees," or to 
specify "in trust," except in cases in which the parties knew 
or cared little in regard to the form of holding church-property. 
The present case was not such an exception, as many things 
indicate. The deed for the lot conveyed to the Reformed 

*Even down to the close of his life, Mr. Hildt could not speak of Mr. Otterbein without a 
rush of tears. He was a man of good education and strong, responsible character. He was 
converted under an Easter sermon preached by Mr. Otterbein; and so much was he esteemed 
by him that Mr. Otterbein once said to him. “I want you to hold yourself for my place.” In 
1817 he began to preach, and was long a successful minister among the United Brethren. 



CALL TO BALTIMORE 


117 


church in Frederick, in 1764, was made to the “elders in the 
Reformed church and their successors forever .” Let us notice 
further the manner in which the Baltimore property was held. 
John Stover, whose will was probated October 26, 1774, be¬ 
queathed his title in the lots to George Dagon. Conrad 
Smith, whose will was probated June 9, 1777, bequeathed his 
title in the lots to Rev. Wm. Otterbein. Valentine Larsh, 
whose will was probated January 30, 1781, bequeathed his 
title in the lots to his son Abraham Larsh. Thus in ten years, 
as far as form was concerned, the property entirely changed 
hands. July 21, 1786, these second holders deeded their 
respective interests in said property to George Devilbiss. In 
1792, George Devilbiss deeded the property to William Otter¬ 
bein, and the latter by will, December 5, 1805, bequeathed the 
same to Peter Hoffman and Wm. Baker, who should “take all 
legal measures to vest the said property in the elders, trustees, 
and members of the German Evangelical Reformed Church.” 
To make assurance doubly sure, Otterbein eight days later con¬ 
veyed the property by deed to the same persons with the same 
end in view. If this manner of holding the property, for a 
period of forty years, means anything, it means, if not that a 
congregation to be preserved absolutely independent was con¬ 
templated at the start, at least that the congregation was 
determined, in the absence of any settled line of procedure, to 
keep its future, under Providence, within its own power. 
This necessarily meant a basis of independence at the first. 
By keeping the property in the hands of the most trusted, they 
secured their object. As early as 1774 a confirmed attitude of 
independence was reached. But the character of the congre¬ 
gation within itself was, to a considerable extent, a subsequent 
development. 

The charter obtained in 1798, under which the property 
was finally and permanently held, states that all property 
should be “absolutely and unconditionally” vested in the 
elders, trustees, and members of the German Evangelical Re¬ 
formed Church. 

In 1840, when a few disaffected members, strongly abetted 
by persons in the Reformed Church, sought to wrest the 


118 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


property from its proper holders and carry it over to the 
Reformed Church, the congregation renewed the statement of 
its originally independent character. In the trial that followed 
the court gave a summary judgment, “in strong and decisive 
terms,” in favor of the congregation. This judgment was 
based upon all the legal papers pertaining to the congregation, 
and upon the history of the congregation; and it ought, from 
every point of view, to be regarded as decisive. It was not 
only made clear that the congregation was independent in its 
relations, but that it was not Reformed in character. Yet a 
second German Reformed church, erected in 1843, has been 
styled the Third German Reformed Church. 

In 1842 another litigation was instituted, nominally be¬ 
tween factions in the Baltimore congregation but really in¬ 
volving the issues and purposes of the first litigation. After 
four years in which the church remained closed the decision 
was again in favor of the independence of the congregation and 
the legality of the organization maintaining a voluntary unity 
with the United Brethren. 

The case might be rested here, but a few points yet remain 
to be stated. The following incidental testimony of Griffith, 
coming as it does from a disinterested source, and from an 
early period, must be conceded to have some force: “Several 
members of the German or Dutch Presbyterian society, at¬ 
tached to the Rev. Wm. Otterbein, form a separate religious 
society which they distinguish by the name of the German 
Evangelical Reformed Church, and they purchased a lot, where 
their present church is on Conway Street, and worship in a 
small house there.”* In all of his references, Griffith gives to 
the Reformed Church the name given above, and to Mr. Otter- 
bein's congregation its proper designation. 

Further evidence may be found in the set of articles given 
in the church-book of the congregation, and in the charter of 
the congregation, both of which documents will be found in a 
subsequent chapter. 

A concluding testimony, one that seems to make all others 
superfluous, is the fact that no elders from Mr. Otterbein’s 


♦Page 63 of Griffith’s Annals of Baltimore, published in 1822. 



CALL TO BALTIMORE 


119 


church, in the almost forty years of his connection with it, 
were ever in attendance at the sessions of the ccetus. The 
lists and papers belonging to this period in the history of the 
Baltimore church, in connection with the minutes of the ccetus 
that are extant, seem to assure this fact beyond dispute. The 
ministers serving churches under the coetus were instructed 
always to bring an elder or elders with them. 

It has been exceedingly disagreeable to be required to go 
to such length in giving the character of the Baltimore congre¬ 
gation, but the better feelings that all concerned desire will be 
impossible until the real facts in this case are allowed to go to 
history. 

The determination of the character of the congregation 
does not declare what Mr. Otterbein’s personal relations to the 
German Reformed Church, at that time, were. By taking 
charge of the Baltimore congregation he did not necessarily 
cast off his relation to the coetus. What his relations finally 
became will be indicated in the proper place. 







CHAPTER IX. 


ESTABLISHMENT AND PROGRESS OF THE BALTIMORE 
CONGREGATION. 

Churches Built—The Congregation—Rules of Discipline—Later History. 

£”i)OON after Mr. Otterbein came to Baltimore, the 
\ little frame church house built by Mr. Schwope’s 
I congregation in 1771 was found to be too small for the 
purposes of the congregation. It may be that the 
building of a more commodious place of worship was a con¬ 
sideration in his coming to Baltimore. At any rate, a frame 
building of larger capacity was erected in 1775, the year fol¬ 
lowing his coming to Baltimore. This in turn became too 
small and in 1786, the church now standing was completed 
and ready for occupancy. 

The front of the church, now shut in by buildings, at 
first faced a street, then known as Walnut Street, running 
diagonally and approaching somewhat nearer to the church 
than does the north and south street now lying in that direction. 
The church-building was constructed of brick, and exclusive of 
the steeple, which was subsequently added, was sixty-five feet in 
length. The breadth was forty-eight feet. There was, as 
seen in many churches erected in that day, an upper course 
of windows, designed to admit light to the gallery, which 
extended all around the interior of the building, except the 
end at which the pulpit stood. The building was of the most 
substantial kind and still answers well its purpose. At the 
same time when the church was built, a parsonage, a cottage 
of four rooms, was also built. Previously Mr. Otterbein had 
been the owner of two small residence properties in which he had 
probably lived. The entire cost of the church and parsonage 
was about six thousand dollars, a sum representing a larger 
value then than now. 

This was a large sum for the congregation to raise, especi¬ 
ally as some of its members had before borne a part in the 


121 


122 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


erection of other church-buildings. Valentine Larsh, and 
likely also Conrad Smith, whose names are given in connection 
with the purchase of the lots on Howard's Hill, had served on 
the building committee in the erecting of the church-building 
that was held by Mr. Faber's party. They certainly did not 
leave the congregation whose house they had helped to build 
to escape burdens. 

If it had not been for Mr. Otterbein's personal contribu¬ 
tions, the congregation could not have built so substantially. 
When the church and parsonage were finished, there was a 
“balance due Father Otterbein" of about seventeen hundred 
dollars. In reference to this debt Mr. Otterbein wrote in the 
church-book in 1788, “The above debt is partly paid [one 
third of it], the balance made a present to the congregation." 
Then followed his name. He is said to have contributed in all 
toward the buildings, two thousand one hundred and thirty-six 
dollars. This money, apparently all that he had at the time 
was mostly received from his wife's father and brother. How 
fully the people were in accord with him, and how fully he 
confided in them, appear from his casting his all among them. 

Mr. Otterbein had not, from the first, found the most 
encouragement and success in his work. He received from 
Mr. Schwope, not a church, but the unorganized elements of a 
congregation. With 1774 the real history of the church began. 
In consequence of the discouragements from the Revolutionary 
War, and the disturbed condition of the country in general, he, 
in 1779, made up his mind to return to Europe, and there 
remain for a time; but the dangers of the voyage influenced 
him to give up the purpose.* As scarcely any Germans were 
coming to this country, and as those that were here were seeking 
homes away from the cities, the prospect of usefulness in 
Baltimore was growing weaker rather than stronger. At the 
close of the war the prospect became much better, and the 
numbers of the congregation began to increase. 

The Reformed coetus, since the withdrawal of the new 
congregation in 1771, had been seeking to bring about a union. 
The resolution against Mr. Otterbein's taking charge of the 


*Pilgerreise. p. 320. 



THE BALTIMORE CONGREGATION 


123 


congregation, and the “informal censure” on his accepting the 
call tendered him, were due to the fear that he would not or 
could not bring about a union. The resolution passed in 1775 
whereby the ccetus offered to receive the new congregation has 
been referred to. In 1784, the coetus gave up its effort in this 
direction, as is indicated by the following resolution: “Re¬ 
solved, That inasmuch as reunion is not to be expected [in 
Baltimore] both congregations be retained and recognized as 
congregations connected with coetus, so long as they remain 
faithful to the doctrine and customs of the Reformed Church.” 
This change in the attitude of the coetus may have pleased 
Mr. Otterbein, though it is certain that he had no anxiety for 
a change in the relations of his congregation; and it is certainly 
the case that after 1774 the independence already spoken of 
was held to be a settled feature of the congregation. 

The rules of discipline adopted by the Baltimore congrega¬ 
tion, along with some prefatory remarks, will now be given 
entire. As these rules proceeded from the pen of Mr. Otter¬ 
bein, no one will complain of the space taken up. The follow¬ 
ing are the rules as adopted in 1785, and recorded at that time 
in the church-book, the prefatory remarks being likewise in¬ 
cluded : 

William Otterbein came to Baltimore, May 4, 1774, and 
commenced his ministerial work. Without delay, and by the 
help of God, he began to organize a church, and, as far as it 
was possible for him, to bring it within the letter and spirit of 
the gospel. Such disciplinary church-rules as were needful 
were therefore, from time to time, adopted, made known, and 
the importance of keeping them earnestly enjoined. But the 
afflicting and long-continued war, and the dispersion, on ac¬ 
count of the same, of many of its members into the interior of 
the country, prevented these rules from being written in a 
book for their preservation. 

But through and by the goodness of God, peace and quiet¬ 
ness being restored, and with the gathering together of former 
members, and with a considerable addition of new members, 
the church finds itself, at this time, considerably increased. 
Therefore, it is unanimously concluded and ordained, by the 


124 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


whole church, to bring the constitution and ordinances of this 
church into the following form, which we hold as agreeing with 
the word of God; and for their permanency and perpetual 
observance, herewith record and preserve. 

1. By the undersigned preacher and members that now 
constitute this church, it is hereby ordained and resolved, 
that this church, which has been brought together in Baltimore 
by the ministration of our present preacher, W. Otterbein, in 
the future, consist of a preacher, three elders, and three trus¬ 
tees, an almoner, and church-members; and these together 
shall pass under and by the name—The Evangelical Reformed 
Church. 

2. No one, whoever he may be, can be preacher or mem¬ 
ber of this church whose walk is unchristian and offensive, or 
who lives in some open sin. (I. Tim. iii. 1-3; I. Cor. v. 11-13.) 

3. Each church-member must attend faithfully the public 
worship on the Sabbath day, and at all other times. 

4. This church shall yearly solemnly keep two days of 
humiliation, fasting, and prayer, which shall be designated 
by the preacher—one in the spring, the other in the autumn 
of the year. 

5. The members of this church, impressed with the 
necessity of a constant religious exercise, of suffering the word 
of God richly and daily to dwell in them,—(Col. iii. 16; Heb. 
iii. 13;—x. 24, 25,)—resolve that each sex shall hold meetings 
apart, once a week, for which the most suitable day, hour, 
and place shall be chosen, for the males as well as the females— 
for the first, an hour in the evening, and for the last an hour 
in the day-time, are considered the most suitable. In the 
absence of the preacher, an elder or trustee shall lead such 
meetings. 

The rules of these special meetings are these: 

(a.) No one can be received into them who is not resolved 
to flee the wrath to come, and, by faith and repentance, to 
seek his salvation in Christ, and who is not resolved willingly 
to obey the disciplinary rules which are now observed by this 
church for good order and advance in godliness, as well as 
such as in the future may be added by the preacher and church 
vestry; yet, always excepted, that such rules are founded on 
the word of God, which is the only unerring guide of faith and 
practice. 


THE BALTIMORE CONGREGATION 


125 


m (b.) These meetings are to commence and end with 
singing and prayer; and nothing shall be done but what will 
tend to build up and advance godliness.* 

(c.) Those who attend these special meetings but in¬ 
differently, sickness and absence from home excepted, after 
being twice or thrice admonished, without manifest amend¬ 
ment, shall exclude themselves from the church. 

(d.) Every member of this church should fervently engage 
in private worship, morning and evening pray with his family, 
and himself and his household attend divine worship at all 
times. 

(e.) Every member shall sedulously abstain from all 
backbiting and evil-speaking of any person, or persons, without 
exception, and especially of his brethren in the church. (Rom. 
xv. 1-3; II. Cor. xii. 20; I. Peter ii. 1; James iv. 11.) The 
transgressor shall, in the first instance, be admonished privately; 
but, the second time, he shall be openly rebuked in the class¬ 
meeting. 

(/.) Every one must avoid all worldly and sinful com¬ 
pany, and to the utmost shun all foolish talking and jesting. 
(Ps. xv. 4; Eph. v. 4-11.) This offense will meet with severe 
church-censure. 

(g.) No one shall be permitted to buy or sell on the 
Sabbath, nor attend to worldly business; or to travel far or 
near, but each shall spend the day in quietness and religious 
exercises. (Isa. lviii. 13, 14). 

( h .) Each member shall willingly attend to any of the 
private concerns of the church, when required so to do by the 
preacher or vestry; and each one shall strive to lead a quiet 
and godly life, lest he give offense, and fall into the condemna¬ 
tion of the adversary. (Matt. v. 14-16; I. Peter, ii. 12.) 

6. Persons expressing a desire to commune with us at 
the Lord's table, although they have not been members of 
our church, shall be admitted by consent of the vestry; pro¬ 
vided that nothing justly can be alleged against their walk in 
life, and more especially when it is known that they are seeking 
their salvation. After the preparation sermon, such persons 
may declare themselves openly before the assembly, also, that 
they are ready to submit to all wholesome discipline; and thus 
they shall be received into the church. 

7. Forasmuch as the difference of people and denomina¬ 
tions end in Christ,—(Rom. x. 12; Col. iii. 11)—and availeth 
nothing in him, but a new creature—(Gal. vi. 13-16)—it 

♦There was more of the class-meeting and less of the prayer-meeting in these meetings 
than belonged to the social meetings as first introduced by Mr. Otterbein. 



126 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


becomes our duty, according to the gospel, to commune with 
and admit to the Lord's table, professors, to whatever order or 
sort of the Christian church they belong. 

8. All persons who may not attend our class-meetings, 
nor partake of the holy sacrament with us, but attend our 
public worship, shall be visited, by the preacher, in health and 
in sickness, and on all suitable occasions. He shall admonish 
them, baptize their children, attend to their funerals, impart 
instruction to their youths; and, should they have any chil¬ 
dren, the church shall interest itself for their education. 

9. The preacher shall make it one of his highest duties 
to watch over the rising youth, diligently instruct them in the 
principles of religion, according to the word of God.* He 
should catechise them once a week; and the more mature in 
years, who have obtained a knowledge of the great truths of 
the gospel, should be impressed with the importance of striving 
through divine grace, to become worthy recipients of the holy 
sacrament. And in view of church-membership, such as 
manifest a desire to this end should be thoroughly instructed 
for a time, be examined in the presence of their parents and 
the vestry, and, if approved, after the preparation sermon, 
they should be presented before the church, and admitted. 

10. The church is to establish and maintain a German 
school, as soon as possible; the vestry to spare no effort to 
procure the most competent teachers, and devise such means 
and rules as will promote the best interests of the school. 

11. That, after the demise or removal of the preacher, the 
male members of the church shall meet, without delay, in the 
church-edifice, and after singing and prayer, one or more shall 
be proposed by the elders and trustees. A majority of votes 
shall determine the choice, and a call shall be made according¬ 
ly;! but, should the preacher on whom the choice falls, decline 
the call, then as soon as possible others shall be proposed, and 
a choice made. But here it is especially reserved, that should 
it so happen that before the demise or removal of the preacher, 
his place should already have been provided for, by a majority 
of votes, then no new choice shall take place. 

12. No preacher can stay among us who is not in unison 
with our adopted rules, and order of things, and class-meetings, 
and who does not diligently observe them. 

*No doctrinal standard, outside of the Bible, is, in these articles, referred to. The Heidel¬ 
berg Catechism, while prized by Mr. Otterbein, was yet, doubtless, at this time, accepted by 
him as Wesley accepted the Thirty Nine Articles—with the reserved liberty to modify and 
construe. He catechised rather than taught a catechism. 

tit will be noticed that there is no reference to any authority outside of the congregation. 



THE BALTIMORE CONGREGATION 


127 


13. No preacher can stay among us who teaches the doc¬ 
trine of predestination (Gnadenwahl ), or the impossibility of 
falling from grace, and who holdeth these as doctrinal points.* 

14. No preacher can stay among us who will not to the 
best of his ability care for the various societies ( Gemeinden ) in 
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, which churches, under 
the superintendence of William Otterbein, stand in fraternal 
unity with us. 

15. No preacher can stay among us who shall refuse to 
sustain, with all diligence, such members as have arisen from 
this or some other churches, or who may yet arise, as helpers 
in the work of the Lord as preachers and exhorters, and to 
afford unto them all possible encouragement, so long as their 
lives shall be according to the gospel.f 

16. All the preceding items shall be presented to the 
preacher chosen, and his full consent thereto obtained, before 
he enters upon his ministry. 

17. The preacher shall nominate the elders from among 
the members who attend the special meetings, and no others 
shall be proposed; and their duties shall be made known unto 
them, by him, before the church. 

18. The elders, so long as they live in accordance with the 
gospel, and shall not attempt to introduce any new act con¬ 
trary to this constitution and these ordinances, are not to be 
dismissed from their office, except on account of debility, or 
other cause. Should an elder wish to retire, then in that case, 
or in case of removal by death, the place shall be supplied by 
the preacher, as already provided. 

19. The three trustees are to be chosen yearly, on New 
Year's Day, as follows: The vestry will propose six from 
among the members who partake with us of the holy sacra¬ 
ment. Each voter shall write the names of the three he desires 
as trustees, on a piece of paper, and when the church has met, 
these papers shall be collected, opened, and read, and such as 


♦The old church in Baltimore, among other regulations adopted in 1789, adopted the 
following: “No foreign preacher can preach in our church without the consent of the pastor 
and consistory, and he must acknowledge the Reformed confessions of Switzerland and Hol¬ 
land.” This rule agrees well with the requirement that the church in Holland placed upon 
the Germans as a condition on which assistance would be given. In regard to predestination, 
no contrast could be greater than that presented by the rule adopted by Mr. Otterbein’s 
church and the Reformed confessions referred to. While Mr. Otterbein’s doctrinal views 
appear to have occasioned no trouble in the Reformed Church, the expression or doctrine as 
given in the thirteenth article above quoted, was, especially, in view of the connection with 
the Dutch Church, decidedly un-Reformed. It is not likely that Mr. Otterbein directly 
antagonized Calvinism before his removal to Baltimore 

tArticles fourteen and fifteen, showing the progress of the revival movement, will be 
referred to on another page. 



128 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


have a majority of votes shall be announced to the church, and 
their duties made known unto them, by the preacher, in the 
presence of the church. 

20. The almoner shall be chosen at the same time, and in 
the same manner as the trustees, and at the next election, will 
present his account. 

21. The preacher, elders, and trustees shall attend to all 
the affairs of the church, compose the church-vestry, and shall 
be so considered. 

22. All deeds, leases, and other rights. concerning the 
property of this church, shall be conveyed, in the best and 
safest manner, to this church-vestry, and their successors, as 
trustees of this church. 

23. Should a preacher, elder, or trustee be accused of any 
known immorality, upon the testimony of two or three credible 
witnesses, the same shall be sustained against him, and he 
shall be immediately suspended; and, until he gives sure proof 
of true repentance, and makes open confession, he shall remain 
excluded from this church. The same rule shall be observed 
and carried out in relation to members of the church who shall 
be found guilty of immoral conduct. (I. Cor. v. 11-13; I. Tim. 
v. 20; Tit. iii. 10.) 

24. All offenses between members shall be dealt with in 
strict conformity with the precepts of our Lord. (Matt, 
xviii. 15-18.) No one is, therefore, permitted to name the 
offender, or the offense, except in the order prescribed by our 
Savior. 

25. No member is allowed to cite his brother before the 
civil authority, for any cause. All differences shall be laid 
before the vestry, or each party may choose a referee from 
among the members of the church, to whom the adjustment of 
the matter shall be submitted. The decision of either the 
vestry or referees shall be binding on each party; nevertheless, 
should any one believe himself wronged, he may ask a second 
hearing, which shall not be refused. The second hearing may 
be either before the same men, or some others of the church; 
but whosoever shall refuse to abide by this second verdict, 
or, on any occasion, speak of the matter of dispute, or accuse 
his opponent with the same, excludes himself from the church. 

26. The elders and trustees shall meet four times in the 
year; namely, the last Sabbath in March, the last Sabbath in 
June, the last Sabbath in September, and the last Sabbath in 
December, in the parsonage-house, after the afternoon service, 
to take the affairs of the church into consideration. 

27. This constitution and these ordinances shall be read 
every New Year’s Day, before the congregation, in order to 






■ . . 




iiiMiii&M 


f > v - 'wgi 

1 F **’■*♦ *’'■•;■:'■>’ . .'o' • ,✓'' j 

SpitaBBi 



1 T*Y ,r q, : . v< a 

MWA ' «/V SStiftJ i . . .-it j 

BiMgiBBara . .”™!Pj 

■ v 




f 

-v^aasaB 



1 

^ - 




*/ 

i 

: 

K^-y • 

• 


sk 











PETER KEMP’S HOUSE 
















































OTTERBEIN’3 CHURCH, BALTIMORE—From an early cut 



BENEDICT SCHWOPE 


BISHOP FRANCIS ASBURY 




























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































THE BALTIMORE CONGREGATION 


129 


keep the same in special remembrance, and that they may be 
carefully observed, and no one plead ignorance of the same. 

28. We, the subscribers, acknowledge the above-written 
items and particulars, as the ground-work of our church, and 
we ourselves, as co-members, by our signatures, recognize 
and solemnly promise religious obedience to the same. 

WILLIAM OTTERBEIN, Preacher. 
Lehard Herbach, [Leonard Harbaugh]. ] 

Henry Weitner, [Weidner]. VElders 

Peter Hoffman. J 

Philip Bier. -j 

William Baker. f Trustees 

Abraham Lorsh, [Larsh]. J 

BALTIMORE, JANUARY 1, 1785. 

All of the members of the church recorded their names 
with their own hand, thereby binding themselves to the con¬ 
stitution and principles of the church. 

No one can fail to see in the foregoing articles an attempt 
to supply the essential elements of a church-discipline. Some¬ 
thing was indeed trusted, on the basis of the Scriptures, to the 
Christian judgment of those immediately concerned; but 
nothing was left to be supplied by any existing church-regula¬ 
tions or formal statements of doctrine. The articles are not 
only complete in themselves, but they present, in discipline, 
doctrine, methods, and spirit the antithesis of the features 
belonging to the Reformed Church. 

In 1798 the church was regularly incorporated.* In the 
early history of Maryland there was no provision for the 
incorporation of churches. 

*Inasmuch as reference has frequently been made, in different articles and books, to the 
charter of the congregation, that document will be inserted here. It should be remem¬ 
bered that thirteen years elapsed between the drawing up of the articles of discipline be¬ 
fore given and the framing of the charter. The charter, however, presents few changes. 
The charter is much longer than that of the old church, the latter containing but five ar¬ 
ticles. It will be noticed that in the charter the word German is placed before “Evangel¬ 
ical Reformed." It does not seem to have been thus used before. In this case, though, 
it is rather used for fuller description than as a part of the title. The following is the 
charter: 

WHEREAS, The German Evangelical Reformed Church of the city of Baltimore, by 
their petition to the General Assembly, have prayed that they may be incorporated with 
powers adequate to the regulation of their temporal concerns, and with authority to take, 
hold, and possess property sufficient for the support of their minister, for the repairing and 
keeping in repair of their church, for building and keeping in repair a school-house, and for 
other secular matters pertaining to their society; therefore. 



130 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


It seems that after the points that have been given, and 
others that naturally rise out of the simple narration of 
events, are taken into account, it must be evident that Mr. 
Otterbein’s church was not a regular Reformed church. If 
men still persist in making statements to that effect then 
there is an end to any agreement among men, and persons 
may say whatever whims or prejudice may suggest. All 
reasoning and assertion must be alike irresponsible. 


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That Wm. Otterbein (the present 
minister), Peter Hoffman, Philip Bier, and Christian Matioth (the present elders). John Shults, 
Henry Bender, and Thomas Cronmiller (the present trustees), with all the present members 
and also those that may hereafter become members of said congregation shall be, and they are 
hereby declared to be one body polite and corporate, by the name and style of elders, trustees, 
and members of the German Evangelical Reformed Church in the city of Baltimore, and by 
that name and style shall have perpetual succession, and shall be capable in law to sue and 
be sued, to plead and be impleaded, in any court of law and equity within this state or else¬ 
where, and make, change, and alter at pleasure a common seal, and shall be capable hereafter 
to purchase, receive, hold, and enjoy any estate or donation, real, personal, or mixed, not 
exceeding six thousand dollars; and, 

Be it enacted, That the male members of the said church, of the full age of twenty-one 
years, may and shall meet, on the first Monday of January next, or within ten days thereafter 
n every year after the passage of this act, at their church, or at such other place within the 
city of Baltimore as may be appointed by the elders and trustees, for the time being, notice 
being given by the president on the Sunday preceding the day of such meeting, and may and 
shall there and then, elect by ballot four of the most pious and discreet members of the said 
church to serve as elders for one year, and until another election made in virtue of this act; 
as also to elect four other discreet members of their body as trustees to serve for one year, 
and until another election shall be made in virtue of this act; and, 

Be it enacted, That in all cases where an elder or elders, trustee or trustees is or are to be 
appointed in virtue of this act, the president, elders, and trustees for the time being, shall at 
least eight days before the day of such election nominate from the most pious and discreet 
members of the said church double the number of elder or elders, trustee or trustees, so to be 
appointed; and, 

Be it enacted. That the president appointed for the time being, and the elders and trustees 
now appointed or their successors who may hereafter be elected, or a majority of them, may 
meet together from time to time, and as often as they may judge necessary, to transact, manage, 
and regulate the business of the church, and to make such rules and by-laws as they may judge 
necessary for the good conduct and government of the members, and management of their 
temporal concerns; provided always that such rules and by-laws be not contrary to the con¬ 
stitution and laws of this state; and, 

Be it enacted, That the said body corporate shall not be able or capable of purchasing any 
property, real or personal, unless with the consent and approbation of three-fourths of their 
whole number; and, 

Be it enacted, That all the lands and tenements, with their appurtenances now vested in 
the minister or any other person for the use of the said church, and all other property of tbe 
said church shall be and are hereby absolutely and unconditionally vested in the said body 
corporate, and their successors forever, and the said corporation with the consent and appro¬ 
bation of three-fourths of their whole number shall be and are hereby declared to be able and 
capable of bargaining, and selling, and leasing, and conveying any part of the said property 
or any other property that may hereafter be acquired by the said corporation, in as full and 
effectual a manner as any person or body polite may or can do; and, 




THE BALTIMORE CONGREGATION 


131 


Although harmony and zeal characterized Mr. Otterbein's 
congregation, the numerical increase was not rapid. In 1791 
there were recorded the names of only sixty members, but they 
in most instances represented families, as only the names of 
adult male members were recorded. This limited success can 
be accounted for in part by Mr. OtterbeiiTs frequent absences 
on his itinerant tours; but it was also due in part to the field 
that he had to cultivate, and to the rivalry that sprung up 
between the new and the old congregations.* In character, 
however, the congregation was the very best. It was composed 
of the most enlightened, substantial, and thrifty of the German 

Be it enacted. That at all meetings of the said elders and trustees the minister for the time 
being shall be the president, and all acts or deeds of the corporation shall be signed by the 
president and sealed with the corporation seal, and all deeds for the conveyance of any land 
of the corporation, which by the law of the land ought to be acknowledged and recorded, shall 
be signed and sealed as aforesaid, and also acknowledged by the president in behalf of the 
corporation in the same manner and form as is prescribed in the case of individual grantors 
and all acts and deeds of the said corporation so authenticated shall be valid and effectual in 
law; and, 

Be it enacted. That in case of the absence, removal, or death of the minister, the elders 
and trustees for the time being may appoint one of their own body president pro tempore, who 
during such absence or death, until the appointment of another minister, shall have all the 
authority and privileges of a president; and, 

Be it enacted, That in case of death, resignation, or a disqualification of any elder or trustee, 
the body corporate shall without delay proceed to the election of another person in his place, 
whereof due notice shall be given by the president to the members of the corporation; and, 

Be it enacted, That at a reasonable time before any and every election the president shall 
nominate and appoint three persons to be the judges thereof. 

*Some light is thrown on the situation in Baltimore by a letter written in 1786 by Rev. 
Nicholas Pomp, the pastor of the old congregation. The letter certainly gives the writer’s 
views and feelings. While some rather severe expressions are used in regard to Mr. Otterbein 
or perhaps more particularly “his people,” it is yet to be remembered that if Mr. Otterbein 
was only carrying out his characteristic work of evangelizing, the manner in which he would 
have been stigmatized would have been the same. The following are extracts from the letter: 
“The division caused long ago by Mr. Otterbein was like a certain operation, well known in 
chemistry, by which the quintessence is withdrawn from the mass, and the rest remains as a 
caput mortuum. Mr. Otterbein is. as you well know, my rival, who, on his part, suffers nothing 
to remain undone that might serve to keep me down. When strangers come from the country 
or from Europe, and take up their residence in the city, he and his people are very busy to 
bring them over to their side. How contemptuously they speak of me, under such circum¬ 
stances, you can well imagine. Notwithstanding all this, the greater number of strangers 
connect themselves with us, because the Methodist ways which Mr. Otterbein pursues with 
his people are not yet acceptable to many German Protestants. Otherwise we are at peace 
with each other, inasmuch as we have no labors to perform in common. At the next meeting 
of coetus I may be compelled to oppose Mr. Otterbein, on account of a preacher named Geeting 
from the neighborhood of Hagerstown, who is to be ordained by the coetus. I have heard the 
man preach and I know what a fanatic he is.” Doctor Pomp’s views of things appear from 
the following words used by him in 1806: “I not only answered your letters but also, in a 
printed newspaper, gave my views in regard to the Methodists, or fanatics (strabblers) , with the 
hope that you might be able to make good use of what I wrote.” 





132 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


population of Baltimore, and their descendants, to this day, 
have filled, in the various circles of life, high and honored places. 

It would perhaps be expected that an account would be 
given here of Mr. Otterbein's domestic situation, his personal 
habits, and his personal relations. This, however, will be 
given in a subsequent chapter. 


CHAPTER X. 
CO-LABORERS IN GENERAL. 


Hendel—Wagner—Hautz—Henop—Weimer—Schwope—A Pietistie Ten¬ 
dency—Minutes of Important Meetings—A License—Remarks—The 
Methodists—Asbury and Otterbein—Asbury’s Consecration as 
Superintendent—Incidents. 

r HERE were a few ministers belonging to the coetus 
of the Reformed Church whose friendly cooperation 
with Mr. Otterbein was so marked as to entitle them 
to a brief notice here. 

The first of those to be named was Rev. Wm. Hendel, the 
brother-in-law of Mr. Otterbein. He came to this country 
from the Palatinate in Germany in 1764, being then perhaps 
forty years of age, and having had experience in the ministry 
before his coming. He was a man of thorough scho’arship 
and rare pulpit talents. His piety was deep and unfeigned. 
He was an excellent pastor, and early introduced prayer- 
meetings. He is spoken of by Mr. Stahlschmidt as one of the 
best preachers with whom he became acquainted in America 
and as a man 'without any sectarian or party spirit.” He 
served congregations at Lancaster, Tulpehocken, and Phila¬ 
delphia. At Tulpehocken he served as many as nine congrega¬ 
tions at one time. He gave great attention to destitute congre¬ 
gations beyond his regular charge. He died at Philadelphia 
in 1798, a martyr to his devotion to the multitudes that that 
year fell victims to the yellow fever. His zealous labors did 
not fail to rouse opposition. As remarked by Doctor Har- 
baugh, “ It would be strange if so good a man had not awakened 
some worldly spirits against him.” In various forms we find 
the truest sympathy and most earnest cooperation between 
Mr. Hendel and Mr. Otterbein. 

Rev. Daniel Wagner was another of the intimate and 
constant friends of Mr. Otterbein. Mr. Otterbein was inti¬ 
mately associated with the Wagner family in Europe, and they 
are supposed to have come to this country at the same time 


133 


134 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


with him. He doubtless often visited the family during his 
Tulpehocken ministry, as the home of the family was not far 
from his place of labor. Mr. Wagner entered the ministry in 
1771, having previously received a liberal preparation. He 
studied theology under Doctor Hendel. Doctor Mayer said 
of him, “He did not concern himself in idle questions and 
disputes, or in sectarian zeal for words and opinions.” His 
piety was “lively, earnest, and full of feeling—the religion of 
the living and not of the dead." When Mr. Otterbein left 
York, he recommended Mr. Wagner as his successor. Mr. 
Wagner afterward served at Tulpehocken, then a second 
period at York, and after that at Frederick, the place of his 
last labors. He died at York in 1810. Mr. Otterbein kept up 
a regular correspondence with him, and the letters written by 
Mr. Otterbein were preserved until within a comparatively 
recent time. It is related that Mr. Wagner kept a written 
sermon of Mr. Otterbein's for the purpose of testing the pro¬ 
ficiency of his pupils in reading. Mr. Otterbein's hand-writing, 
while regular and quite artistic to the eye, was difficult to read. 
This sermon, too, has only lately disappeared. If we had the 
letters in which Mr. Otterbein unfolded his inmost thoughts to 
the warm and true-hearted Wagner, we would have a treasure 
indeed. 

Rev. Anthony Hautz, a pupil of Doctor Hendel, showed 
great friendship, whenever occasions offered, to Mr. Otterbein 
and his fellow-laborers. He began his ministry in 1787. He 
preached in Harrisburg, and at Carlisle, and after 1803 removed 
to the state of New York. It was under his preaching that 
Jacob Albright was awakened. Mr. Albright was converted, 
however, sometime afterward, at the house of Rev. A. Riegel, 
who was associated with the United Brethren. Another 
account places the conversion of Mr. Albright at the house of 
Isaac Davis, a local Methodist preacher, living fourteen miles 
northeast of Lancaster. 

Rev. Frederick Henop, another fellow-laborer of Mr. 
Otterbein, entered upon his ministry about 1764. About 1770 
he accepted a call to Frederick. While at this place he made 
many missionary journeys across the Potomac into Virginia. 


CO-LABORERS IN GENERAL 


135 


He died in 1784. He was a man that felt the necessities of the 
times, and sought by every available means to carry the gospel 
to his neglected countrymen. 

Rev. Jacob Weimer deserves a notice in this connection. 
In 1770 he began in Maryland his ministerial labors, Hagers¬ 
town being his place of residence. In much the same manner 
as did Mr. Henop, he served the destitute congregations in 
Virginia. “ Mr. Weimer was a good man, an excellent preacher, 
plain and practical, beloved by every person, both in and out 
of his congregation.” 

Of Mr Schwope it is unnecessary to speak here at length. 
His spirit was doubtless molded largely by Mr. Otterbein, and 
perhaps, too, somewhat by Mr. Strawbridge, the first Method- 
dist preacher in America. After his retirement from Baltimore 
he appears again to have resided at Pipe Creek. He was an 
earnest evangelical preacher of “extraordinary talents,” and 
is often mentioned by Mr. Asbury. The latter records his 
death as having occurred in Kentucky March 30, 1811, at 
the advanced age of eighty. It is an error to suppose 
that Mr. Otterbein was ever, in a special sense, under the 
influence of Mr. Schwope. The likeness in spirit and purpose 
of the latter to the former was the basis and measure of their 
cooperation. 

A subject will now be considered that must have great 
interest to every one that would understand the different 
features of the movement with which Mr. Otterbein was 
identified. Mr Otterbein began to introduce into the Re¬ 
formed Church, with considerable success, some of the peculiar 
elements of Pietism. This is the subject to be considered. It 
will be remembered that Doctor Schramm, Mr. Otterbein's 
instructor, was in deep sympathy with the spirit and methods 
of Spener, the founder of Pietism. Pietism was so named 
from the associations that were formed for the promotion of 
piety ((collegia pietatis). The aim was not to found a new 
church, but to form little associations within the different 
churches (ecclesiolx in ecclesia) f to introduce a leaven that 
would leaven the whole lump. The dead formalism of the 
times constituted the apology for the extraordinary measures 


136 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


introduced, and enlightened Christians generally, despite the 
weaknesses of Pietism, have been thankful that in the exigency 
of the church God raised up a Spener. George Godfrey and 
Philip William Otterbein were in a marked degree inclined to 
Pietism. 

Pietism arose in the first place to supply life in the place 
of a dead orthodoxy, but in the time of the Otterbeins, not¬ 
withstanding the defection in its ranks, it was the wing of 
protection against the blasting and desolating effects of rational¬ 
ism. Mr. Otterbein in this country was profoundly sensible 
of the wave that was extending itself so ruinously over all 
Germany. Much in his career is explicable only on the ground 
of his acquaintance, through his intimate connections with 
Germany, with the haughty, self-sufficient rationalism of 
Europe. There, culture, philosophy, and even ecclesiastical 
systems were in the first place conquered, and then made the 
instruments and abettors of this gigantic and destructive move¬ 
ment. It is no wonder that pious minds in Europe sought 
safety in a separation from the ruling elements of life, and 
sought to promote inward piety and practical Christianisty in 
the restricted fellowship of kindred souls. In America, aside 
from the reaction against formalism, and the fear of the 
desolations of rationalism, there was an effort to overcome the 
aggravated evils resulting from a promiscuous church-member¬ 
ship in the wanton, mixed society produced by the commingling 
of the most diverse, often the most wretched elements of the 
Old World. All understood themselves to be church-members, 
and all that chose had a part in making up and controlling the 
church. No wonder that such men as Otterbein and Hendel 
desired a more suitable and promising beginning for the work 
that was to be done among the Germans of America. John 
Wesley, who drew largely from the Pietists, notwithstanding 
the members of his societies were a people sifted from the 
promiscuous membership of the Anglican Church, yet had his 
“ bands” and "select societies” through which he hoped to 
cause a purer light and a more elevating influence to be sent 
abroad. 


CO-LABORERS IN GENERAL 


137 


Let us now turn to the minutes of several meetings par¬ 
ticipated in by ministers that had united together to form 
these nuclei in their own congregations, as well as elsewhere. 
The first formal meeting was after Mr. Otterbein's going to 
Baltimore. The minutes that follow were lately discovered 
at Pipe Creek, Maryland, and are in the hand-writing of 
Benedict Schwope.* The minutes are of sufficient interest to 
be given entire. In regard to many things, they explain them¬ 
selves. 


May 29, 1774. 

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

At our meeting at Pipe Creek the following action was 
taken respecting our several congregations: 

1. Concerning the congregation at Baltimore it was 
resolved that, besides the public meeting on Sunday, the male 
members shall meet twice a week in two classes; to-wit, the 
class in the upper part of the city on Tuesday evening; and of 
this class Leonard Herbach is appointed leader ( Aufscher ). 
The other class, of which Henry Weidner is leader, meets on 
Friday evening. The female members are to meet separately, 
every Tuesday afternoon. 

2. The members at Pipe Creek (die Peiff-Kricker) have 
also formed themselves into two classes. David Schreiber and 
Michael Huebener are appointed leaders of the first, and Uhly 
Aeckler and Hans Fischer of the second class. These are to 
meet every Sunday; and no one is to withdraw without good 
reason. 

3. The members at Sam's Creek ( die Sam's Kricker) are 
to constitute a single class. Adam Lehman and Martin Cassel 
are appointed leaders. They are also to hold their meetings 
on Sunday. 

4. The members at Fredericktown (die Friedrichstowner ) 
have organized but one class. They are to meet on Sunday 
evening, and propose to elect a leader for themselves. 

5. The members at Antietam (die Antitemer) are to 
meet every Sunday, in two classes. George Adam Gueding 
and Samuel Becker are appointed leaders. They are to meet 
alternately at the church and at Conrad Schnaebeli's, or wher¬ 
ever else, the leaders may direct. 

♦Knowledge of the existence of these minutes was first communicated to the author by 
Dr. J. H. Dubbs, by whom they were afterward translated and published, in connection with 
an article, in the Reformed Quarterly. 



138 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The ground and object of these meetings is to be, that those 
thus united may encourage one another, pray and sing in 
unison, and watch over one another's conduct. At these 
meetings they are to be especially careful to see to it that 
family worship is regularly maintained. All those who are 
thus united are to take heed that no disturbances occur among 
them, and that the affairs of the congregations be conducted 
and managed in an orderly manner. 

Resolved to meet again on the first Sunday in October at 
D. Schreiber’s. Done on the date above mentioned. 

W. Otterbein. 

B. Schwope. 

October 2, 1774. 

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

At our meeting at David Schreiber's, at Pipe Creek, the 
following action was taken concerning our several congrega¬ 
tions: 

1. In the previously-mentioned congregations everything 
remains as at first arranged, without any change. 

2. Several friends in Canawaken [Conewago] have agreed 
to hold meetings; but no leader has yet been appointed. They 
are to meet every Sunday; and it is determined that they shall 
be visited from time to time by one of the undersigned ministers. 

3. The friends in Sharpsburg have formed a union 
(haben sick vereinigt). Mr. Stein (?), the school-master, is ap¬ 
pointed their leader. Further arrangements are to be made at 
the earliest opportunity by Benedict Schwope and Mr. Weimer. 

4. The friends in Funkstown and Hagerstown are to be 
visited and organized (like the above congregations) by the 
aforesaid ministers. 

5. Resolved to meet next year in Frederick, on the first 
Sunday after Pentecost. 

Done on the date aforesaid. 

W. Otterbein. 

W. Hendel. 

Jacob Weimer. 

Friederich Lud. Henop. 
Daniel Wagner. 

Benedict Schwope. 

Fredericktown, June 12, 1775. 

In the name of our blessed Lord. Amen. 

We, William Otterbein, William Hendel, Frederick Henop, 
Jacob Weimer, Daniel Wagner, and Benedict Schwope, have 
met in this town, according to the resolution passed at our 


CO-LABORERS IN GENERAL 


139 


meeting held last October at Pipe Creek, and after due ex¬ 
amination the following was found to be the condition of the 
congregations or classes: 

1. The friends in this town are at peace, and continue 
their private meetings twice a week, besides regularly attending 
the service in the church. 

2. The friends at Pipe Creek are equally prosperous, 
appear serious in their conduct, and, it is hoped, derive a 
blessing from their meetings. 

3. Those at Sam's Creek are at peace and appear serious. 

4. Those at Antietam are again at peace, after a slight 
disturbance, and meet on Sundays. 

5. Those at Baltimore are at peace; but it is to be feared 
and guarded against, that with their good order and regular 
meetings they do not take the appearance for the reality. 

6. Those at Sharpsburg remain in their previous condi¬ 
tion. They hold meetings. There is no reason to imagine 
evil, but it might be wished that their condition were more 
prosperous. 

7. Those at Funkstown number only a few families, and 
as they live close together they meet according to their con¬ 
venience. At this place progress is very desirable. 

8. The friends at Canawaken (who were mentioned at 
our last meeting at Pipe Creek) continue to meet on Sunday, 
besides going regularly to church, as is our universal order. 
We have reason to hope for good results. 

9. Certain friends in Hagerstown were interested, but 
none of them have come to our present meeting. We hope the 
Lord will kindle among them a flame of love and holy zeal. 

10. Resolved, that our next meeting be held at Baltimore, 
on Sunday, October 15. 

Finally, we observe that since our first meeting, which is 
now more than a year ago, no disturbance has arisen in anyone 
of the aforesaid classes and congregations—except a little 
trouble at Antietam, which has been covered up with the 
mantle of charity. In this may be seen the fruits of good 
discipline, in that at least three hundred souls have remained 
so long at peace, and we hope in the blessing of the Lord; and 
may doubtless be preserved in this condition. We hope and 
desire that the Lord, the merciful, would daily add to their 
numbers. 

Written and done on the date aforesaid, by order of the 
United Ministers, by 

Benedict Schwope, Secretary. 


140 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Baltimore Town, October 15, 1775. 

In Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 

We, William Otterbein, William Hendel, Frederick Lud. 
Henop, Daniel Wagner, and Benedict Schwope, have met 
again, in this town, in accordance with the resolution adopted 
at our last meeting, in Fredericktown, on the 12th of June last. 

1. The friends in this town are at peace. They observe 
the former regulations, and there is no change. 

2. The friends in Frederick continue in their former 
state of prosperity; so also the class at P. Kemp’s. Both have 
increased in numbers. 

3. The friends at Sam’s Creek continue at peace as 
previously. Friend Conrad Dotterer has been appointed 
leader instead of Martin Cassel, who lives too far away. 

4. The friends at Antietam are at peace, and hold meet¬ 
ings according to our rules. 

5. Those at Sharpsburg are at peace, and conduct them¬ 
selves in accordance with the general rules of their meetings. 
It is well. Hopes of increase. 

6. Those at Funkstown are at peace, and meet weekly. 

7. Those at Hagerstown are at peace, and meet every 
Sunday. 

8. The friends at Canawaken meet every Sunday, and 
are at peace. 

9. The friends at Great Pipe Creek are thus far at peace 
(some troubles in the Stein family excepted). 

10. The friends at Little Pipe Creek are in perfect peace, 
and we trust enjoy a blessing. Both classes at the Pipe Creeks 
meet every Sunday, and still have their first leaders. 

11. Several friends in Germantown [Manchester, Mary¬ 
land] have made application, and are to be served. 

12. Resolved, that our next meeting be held in Hagers¬ 
town on the first Sunday after Pentecost. 

Benedict Schwope, Scriba . 

John Ranger’s, June 2, 1776. 

In Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 

We, William Otterbein, William Hendel, Daniel Wagner, 
Jacob Weimer, and Benedict Schwope, have held another 
meeting, according to the resolution adopted at our last meet¬ 
ing, held at Baltimore, on the 15th of October last. 

1. The friends in Baltimore are prosperous, and meet as 
formerly. The congregation has, however, been considerably 
weakened by disturbances caused by the war. 


CO-LABORERS IN GENERAL 


141 


2. The friends in Fredericktown are prosperous and at 
peace, and have increased in numbers. The class at P. Kemp's 
is not so prosperous. Steiner and Studel leaders. 

3. The friends at Sam's Creek are prosperous. 

4. The friends at the Antietam continue at peace, and 
are prosperous. 

5. The friends in Sharpsburg were for some time careless, 
but have now become more active. 

6. Those at Funkstown and Hagerstown have united. 
George Arnold, leader. 

7. Those at Canawaken are prosperous and serious. 

8. Those at Great Pipe Creek are prosperous and at 
peace. Leaders, Jost Maurer and Jacob Cassel. 

9. Those at Little Pipe Creek are prosperous. 

10. Beaver Dam. The friends are united and meet every 
Sunday. 

11. At Peter Reitenauer's the friends meet every Sunday. 
Peter Reitenauer, leader. 

12. Germantown is to be further supplied. 

13. On Sunday, October 20, we will meet again in Canaw¬ 
aken, at Jacob Wilt's. 

Benedict Schwope, Scriba. 

Doctor Hendel at this time was laboring at Tulpehocken, 
a place rather distantly removed from the general field indi¬ 
cated in the minutes. Mr. Henop was at Frederick, Mr. 
Weimer at Hagerstown, and Mr. Wagner at York. In con¬ 
nection with the conferences of the ministers, important 
Sabbath-meetings were doubtless held, as two of the dates 
above given fall upon the Sabbath, one on Monday, and two 
on Friday. 

At the meeting, June 2, 1776, the last for which we have 
minutes, the following license was granted: 

In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. 

We, the undersigned ministers of the Reformed Church, 
hereby announce and make known to whom it may concern, 
that Henry Weidner, is a member of the Reformed Church, 
and inasmuch as we believe that the Lord has called him into 
his vineyard, we allow him to preach the gospel, and hope that 
lovers of the truth will receive him in love; and we invoke 
upon him the grace and blessing of God. 


142 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Given in our ministerial meeting, at John Ranger's, 
June 4, 1776. 

William Otterbein. 

William Hendel. 

Jacob Weimer. 

Benedict Schwope. 

The granting of this license seems to have been the most 
extreme, or the most advanced step of the “united ministers." 
The fact that Mr. Henop was not present at the meeting, and 
that Mr. Wagner, who was present, did not sign the license 
may indicate that the opposition from the side of the ccetus 
was manifesting itself so decidedly that further cooperation 
with the movement became hazardous. The ccetus at no time 
could have looked with favor upon it, and likely at first its 
notice was not so much attracted. Hendel and Wagner, too, 
while personally continuing on the best terms with Mr. Otter¬ 
bein, came to regard with apprehension or disfavor the more 
and more decided measures that he deemed it necessary to 
employ. 

All the ministers were members of the Reformed ccetus. 
Mr. Otterbein had before this been associated with others than 
Reformed, but his removal to Baltimore, and the progress of 
the Revolutionary War, temporarily separated him from his 
former associates. Besides, a work in the Reformed Church 
would have been impeded, if not made impossible, by con¬ 
nections beyond the church. Mr. Otterbein and his associates 
certainly expected to work a transformation throughout the 
extent of the Reformed Church. In 1777 we find awakened 
persons of all classes received into Mr. Otterbein's “societies," 
and other things that indicate that the movement in the 
Reformed Church had reached its limit. It is probable that 
the meeting appointed for October, 1776, was not held, or if so, 
that it was the last. 

Mr. Otterbein and Mr. Schwope were the only ones of the 
“united ministers" that, on the discontinuance of the meetings, 
sought, on a wider scale, to carry out their purpose. Those 
that afterward confined their labors to'the ^regular channel, 
accomplished in the Reformed Church, it must be remarked, 


CO-LABORERS IN GENERAL 


143 


beneficent results. The “laymen,” however, did not so gener¬ 
ally withdraw from the work on which they had entered. 
Henry Weidner, already noticed, Adam Lehman, Leonard 
Herbach (Harbaugh), Peter Kemp, and George A. Geeting* 
were afterward active and successful preachers among the 
United Brethren. In subsequent times, in the districts in 
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, in which the “united 
ministers” labored, Mr. Otterbein found a welcome field. 
The Maryland and Virginia Germans of the Reformed faith 
were especially destitute, as the aid received from Holland, by 
the plan on which it was contributed, was mostly to be ex¬ 
pended in Pennsylvania. 

This account of Mr. Otterbein's occupying a leading place 
among the “united ministers” explains much, but not every¬ 
thing, in his course. It does not explain the anterior union at 
Isaac Long’s. It does not indicate the relations and limits of 
his subsequent course. It does demonstrate, however, the 
possibility of his sustaining a double relation, which double 
relation, in turn, made it possible, under the force of circum¬ 
stances, for the line of attachments that at first was the more 
frail, practically to lessen or supplant in the end, the line that, 
at the first, was the stronger. 

Between Mr. Otterbein and the early Methodists with 
whom he came in contact the relations were the most apprecia¬ 
tive and cordial. It is to be remarked, however, that when he 
began to preach an evangelical experience, and even when he 
began to hold prayer-meetings at Tulpehocken, in 1758 and 
1759, there were no Methodist preachers in America. Mr. 
Wesley, before his conversion, had spent some time in Georgia, 
and Mr. Whitefield had traversed the country, mostly through 
the South, preaching with unrivaled eloquence the stirring 
truths of the gospel. He, however, left no organization and 
appointed no preachers. Some persons converted under his 
labors, though, were unable to keep to themselves their glowing 
experiences, and involuntarily became preachers. We read of 
ministers being sought, in later times, to fill the places of these 

♦Some of these had begun to preach before 1774. George A. Geeting, for example, began 
to preach in 1772. 



144 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


worn-out Whitefield or “new light” preachers. Robert Straw- 
bridge, a Methodist local preacher, came to this country and 
settled at Sam's Creek, Maryland, between 1760 and 1765. 
Philip Embury began to preach in New York in 1766, and in 
the same year formed the first Methodist class in America.* 
Messrs. Boardman and Pillmore, the first missionaries sent out 
by Mr. Wesley, arrived in New York in 1769. In 1771 Mr. 
Francis Asbury and Mr. Richard Wright arrived. 

Between Mr. Asbury and Mr. Otterbein there sprung up 
an almost romantic friendship. In 1772 Mr. Schwope and Mr 
Asbury first met, and through the former Mr. Asbury was made 
acquainted with the character and work of Mr. Otterbein. 

In February, 1774, Mr. Asbury, as already related, wrote 
a letter to Mr. Otterbein to influence him to settle in Baltimore. 
On May 4, 1774, the very day on which Mr. Otterbein entered 
upon his work in Baltimore, Mr. Otterbein and Mr. Asbury 
first met. The latter made the following entry in his journal: 
“Had a friendly intercourse with Mr. 0. and Mr. S., the 
German ministers, respecting the plan of church-discipline on 
which they intend to proceed. They agreed to imitate our 
methods as nearly as possible.”f 

Mr. Otterbein was at this time in his forty-eighth year, 
and Mr. Asbury was in his twenty-ninth year. Mr. Asbury 
had been preaching, though, since his sixteenth year. Mr. 
Otterbein was large and impressive in appearance; Mr. Asbury 
was medium in height, compactly built, and, in his appearance, 
boyish. At this time Mr. Otterbein knew little English, and 
Mr. Asbury, no German. Great as were the contrasts between 
these men, the things in which they were alike, though hidden 
more or less from view, were greater and more decidedly 
marked. They had yielded to the same truth; they had ex¬ 
perienced the same things; they preached the same doctrines; 

*That Robert Strawbridge formed in Maryland the first Methodist class in America is 
earnestly contended by many leaders and scholars in the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

tThe agreement to imitate must be understood of the most general features only. The 
Methodists did not then form a church either in Europe or America. Mr. Otterbein resisted 
the adoption of the articles and discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, after that 
church was organized. A subsequent remark of Mr. Asbury was that Mr. Otterbein “could 
only approve;” that is, he approved of the wisdom of the articles and rules themselves, but 
could not take it upon himself to introduce them. 



CO-LABORERS IN GENERAL 


145 


they were each intrusted with a great mission. Mr. Otterbein 
was the greater in spiritual resource, and was possessed of 
larger preaching-talent; Mr. Asbury was greater in active 
power and had before him a clearer aim and a more inviting 
field. Each, however, in the respects in which he was inferior 
to the other still towered far above the forms of common men. 
While Mr. Asbury was nominally a member of the English 
Episcopal Church, the separation was already so great, on the 
part of the Methodists in general, that he experienced practic¬ 
ally little embarrassment from this formal connection. In 
the holding of property and the management of their affairs, 
the Methodists were already a distinct people. Yet they 
positively refused to assume the administration of the ordi¬ 
nances. Mr. Asbury himself was still a layman. Mr. Otterbein 
had regular ministerial standing, and thus was under no 
embarrassment as regards the ordinances; yet his connection 
with the coetus long restrained him from a fully decided course. 

April 28 and 29, 1775, Mr. Asbury made the following 
entry in his journal: “Mr. Otterbein, the Dutch minister, 
accompanied me to I. O.'s, where we had a blessed and refresh¬ 
ing season. * * * I dined with Mr. 0., the minister men¬ 
tioned above, and spent the afternoon with him and Mr. S. 
[Schwope]. * * * They both appear to be sincerely religious, 
and intend to make proposals to the German synod this year 
to lay a plan for the reformation of the Dutch congregations/' 

June 18, 1776, he wrote, “Returned on Wednesday to 
Baltimore, and spent some time with Mr. 0. There are very 
few with whom I can find so much unity and freedom in 
conversation as with him.” 

January 27, 1777, he wrote, “I have had an agreeable 
conversation with my friend Mr. Otterbein.” 

Their friendship being such, it is not strange that Mr. 
Asbury desired Mr. Otterbein to take a part in his consecration 
as a superintendent of the Methodists in America. The first 
Methodist general conference, as it may be called, met in 
Baltimore, December 25, 1784. Mr. Asbury was ordained 
deacon on the first day of the conference, by Doctor Coke, an 
elder ordained in the Church of England, and specially conse- 


146 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


crated by Mr. Wesley superintendent of the work in America. 
Doctor Coke was assisted by Richard Whatcoat and Thomas 
Vasey, who were ordained as elders by Mr. Wesley. On the 
day following, Doctor Coke, assisted by the same elders, or¬ 
dained Mr. Asbury to the office of elder. On the next day, 
Monday, Doctor Coke, assisted by the same elders, and also 
by Mr. Otterbein,* consecrated Mr. Asbury to the office of 
superintendent. 

It lingered as a tradition in Baltimore that a committee 
from the conference waited upon Mr. Otterbein to secure his 
presence and assistance at the consecration, and that he said 
to the committee, "I must first consult with my God/' When 
the committee called the next morning he expressed his willing¬ 
ness to comply with the wish of Mr. Asbury and of the con¬ 
ference. 

Mr. Asbury often afterward referred to the presence of 
Mr. Otterbein at his consecration; and especially was this the 
case when the validity of his office was called in question. 

The organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church was 
a great boon to the American Methodists. The power that 
this organization put into the hands of Mr. Asbury, and the 
sinews that it put into the arm of the Methodist movement, 
introduced a new era in the religious history of the New World. 
And yet those seem to be right that assert that the mode of 
organization, especially as it stood a few years later, tran¬ 
scended any definite thought that Mr. Wesley could have had, 
involving at once more of distinct churchly character than was 
consistent with the general direction that he sought to preserve 
to himself. It must be admitted, however, that it was not 
inconsistent with Mr. Wesley's temper and habit to submit 
great contingencies to the direction of infinite Wisdom; and 
further that divine Providence not unfrequently takes things 
out of the hands of the greatest providential leaders. 

♦One of the elders who assisted at the consecration of Mr. Asbury was the Rev. Mr. Otter¬ 
bein, a minister of the German Church. Having enjoyed an intimate acquaintance with this 
pious and evangelical minister of Jesus Christ, and having full fellowship with him as a 
laborious and useful servant of God, Mr. Asbury requested that he might be associated 
with Doctor Coke and the other elders in the performance of this solemn ceremony.—Dr. 
Bangs. 



CO-LABORERS IN GENERAL 


147 


The friendship formed between Mr. Otterbein and Mr. 
Asbury was as intimate as it was firm and lasting. An incident 
or two will illustrate. 

As Mr. Asbury was a non-juror, and in consequence of 
this and also in consequence of some expressions of Mr. Wesley 
on the right of England to coerce the colonies, Mr. Asbury, as 
well as other Methodist ministers, was regarded with suspicion 
by the American authorities. He was once, near Baltimore, 
actually arrested and fined. In this state of things, it is said 
that he was at one time sheltered and cared for at Mr. Otter- 
bein’s house. 

A rather ludicrous story, contrasting rather strikingly 
with the great work in which these champions were engaged, is 
as follows: Mr. Asbury, as an exception for a man of his 
temperament, had written some verses, which some of his 
enthusiastic friends urged him to publish. He had some mis¬ 
givings, but thought he could trust the judgment and candor 
of Mr. Otterbein. Mr. Otterbein examined the verses care¬ 
fully, and when Mr. Asbury asked him for his opinion, he 
replied: “Bruder Asbury, I don't tink you was porn a boet.” 
This honest expression was sufficient, and saved Mr. Asbury 
from having attached to his great reputation as a bishop the 
unenviable reputation of being the author of bad poetry. 

The lapse of forty years and the marvelous and crowding 
changes that took place during that time, had no power to 
break or weaken the friendship of Otterbein and Asbury, 
entered upon thus auspiciously. In these pages we shall yet 
frequently see, side by side, the laborious Asbury and the 
venerable Otterbein. 





CHAPTER XI. 


PROGRESS OF THE RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT. 

Antecedent Stages—Newcomer—His Preparation for the Work—His Ac¬ 
count of his Connection with the Movement—Various Notes of Prog¬ 
ress—Conference of 1789—Members of the Conference—Objects 
Sought—Confession of Faith and Rules—Conference of 1791— 

New Members—The Extent and Character of the Work— 

Mr. Otterbein’s Presence and Assistance—The An- 
tietam Meetings—Mr. Otterbein Present at 
Meetings of the Reformed Church—The 
Methodists Welcomed to His Church— 

Mr. Otterbein Wearing Out. 


r HE joint labors of Mr. Otterbein and Mr. Boehm 
belonging to the earlier period were, in consequence of 
the place and circumstances of each, but occasional, 
and not without considerable interruptions. Mr. 
Otterbein's visit to Germany, then his removal from York to 
Baltimore, and then the breaking out of the Revolutionary 
War, delayed the period of a closely united and general move¬ 
ment. The Mennonite and Reformed currents were to pass 
through a process of separate increase and definition before 
they were to unite. The preparation of the people came later 
than the preparation of the leaders. 

Some laborers that were raised up under Mr. Otterbein or 
Mr. Boehm have already been referred to; but the first preacher 
that was raised up under the influence of the finally united 
elements was Christian Newcomer, who began his preaching in 
1777. The relations of Mr. Newcomer to Mr. Otterbein, and 
to the work in which the latter was engaged, make it proper 
to give here a somewhat full account of his conversion and 
entrance upon the ministry.* 

Christian Newcomer was born in Lancaster County, 
Pennsylvania, January 21, 1749. His grandfather, who came 


♦The main source is Newcomer’s Journal, published in 1834. After an introduction 
relating to Newcomer’s whole life, the Journal gives an account of his labors from 1795 to 1830. 
The omissions in this Journal are so many, even in regard to matter of the highest importance, 
that little, on any given subject, can be inferred from its silence. 


149 



150 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


to this country from Switzerland between 1719 and 1727, was 
Peter Newcomer. His father’s name was Wolfgang New¬ 
comer. The family were Mennonites. Christian Newcomer, 
when he was seventeen years of age, experienced in his soul 
the grace of God; but being without enlightened spiritual 
advisers, he lost his confidence and fell into partial indifference 
and worldliness. In 1770 he was married to Miss Elizabeth 
Baer. Not long afterward, during a severe illness, he was 
again able to rejoice in the conscious favor of God. He now 
felt constrained to tell every one of the blessing that he had 
received. Having at times, however, some misgivings, he 
determined to consult a Mennonite preacher in whom he con¬ 
fided, and walked eight miles for this purpose. In his Journal 
he says: “I related to him, with all the fervor of a new con¬ 
vert, what the work of grace had accomplished in my soul. 
My heart was full of the love of God, and my expressions were-, 
perhaps, rather fervent; therefore, he could not understand me. 
He thought me hasty; said that I had formed too stout an 
opinion in this matter, and might very easily be in error in 
believing such professed experience. * * * We frequently 
differed in opinion during the conversation we had on the 
subject. On my side I maintained the assertion that a person 
could, and surely would, be conscious of the fact when God for 
Christ’s sake had shown mercy to him a poor sinner, in granting 
unto him a free pardon for all his guilt; yea more, I contended 
that the promised seed of the woman should also bruise the 
serpent’s head within us; that is to say, subdue the inclination 
to sin, and conquer the power thereof in our souls. This my 
friend would by no means admit.” 

Sometime afterward the minister fell sick, and Mr. New¬ 
comer felt constrained to pay him a visit. When they were 
left alone the minister turned to him and said, “Christian, do 
you yet recollect the conversation and dispute we had together 
when you were here the last time, particularly in regard to the 
seed of the woman and the serpent?” Following Mr. New¬ 
comer’s response, the minister continued, “Since that time the 
conviction has darted through my mind like a flash of lightning, 
that the seed of the woman can and must destroy the head of 


PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT 151 


the serpent within me, in my heart. Yes, I do believe that 
by the power of our Savior Jesus Christ sin can and must be 
destroyed in my heart, if I shall be saved.” Mr. Newcomer 
was led into his experience of divine grace, not by the counsels 
and assistance of men, but by the agency of the Holy Spirit, 
who seemed to be working independently in so many hearts, 
and in places separated by wide distances. 

His home was about nine miles from Lancaster and about 
thirteen miles from the home of Martin Boehm. In his im¬ 
mediate neighborhood there were two divisions of the Mennon- 
ites, and prejudice of the most inveterate kind kept the differ¬ 
ent parties to themselves. There was a congregation, too, of 
those that were associated with Martin Boehm; yet the strong 
prejudice in the community kept young Newcomer from be¬ 
coming acquainted with Mr. Boehm, or with the spirit of the 
congregation. Yet his was one of the hearts in which God’s 
Spirit was laying the foundation for a great and wide-embracing 
work. 

He, however, shrunk from the duty of publicly declaring 
to others what God had done for him. Even his neighbors 
urged him to preach. Ultimately, like Jonah,—a comparison 
used by himself,—he sought safety in flight. Having sold his 
farm, he moved to Frederick County,—after 1776 within the 
limits of Washington County,—Maryland. This removal took 
place in the spring of 1775. As might have been expected, 
disobedience to duty plunged him again into the abyss of 
doubt and wretchedne/ss. From this deplorable state he was 
at length, while engaged in prayer, rescued. The following is the 
account of his experience: “Henceforward my peace flowed 
again like a river. With confidence I could now draw to a 
throne of grace, crying Abba Father. My whole soul was 
swallowed up in love to God. * * * Since the peace of God 
was restored again to my soul, the former call to preach the 
gospel, or rather not to preach but to tell to those about me 
what the Lord had done for me returned with redoubled power. 
It seemed to me to burn like fire in my bones that it was my 
duty, and that the Lord required at my hands, to exhort the 
people to seek the Lord their God, or be lost forever.” What 


152 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


an experience was his! Twice before had he been led into the 
light, and twice had he been thrown back into the darkness. 
As by the providence of God he had been led forward, and 
was now again rescued, he henceforth acted as one chosen of 
God, and to him alone accountable. In his own heart and life 
he was led to a profound appreciation of the great truths that 
it would be his mission to proclaim, and of those high spiritual 
ends that it would be his privilege and duty to seek. If at 
any time he felt discouraged in his work, he thought of the 
consequences of former disobedience, and feeling that his soul 
would be imperiled, addressed himself again to his work. He 
felt himself to be unworthy and without preparation; he had 
the care of a family; he had the management of a farm; he 
was already twenty-eight years of age; but when once in the 
field, there was henceforth with him no tiring or withdrawing 
until his earthly course was finished. What a contrast with 
this power of conviction in Newcomer we have, in our times, 
in the weakness of conviction that leaves to the ministry, to 
so great an extent, only those that are foot-loose, and those 
to whom worldly emoluments are closed! In more fortunate 
periods, the ministry has claimed the choice from the multi¬ 
tudes of converts. Mr. Newcomer's first public testimony 
was given while on a visit to Pennsylvania, before a Mennonite 
congregation of his old friends and neighbors. He was himself 
much affected, and every one present was deeply touched. 
After this, he was frequently called upon “to exhort and speak 
in public," and lest he should lose his “peace of mind" he 
consented. 

Newcomer was a man of commanding figure, keen visage, 
and was possessed of a voice moderately strong. He was not 
a great preacher, save in the concentration and pressure of 
purpose that never failed to make itself felt upon the heart 
and will. A natural impediment, sometimes manifesting itself 
in his speaking, caused Otterbein at one time to say that he 
felt as though he would like to help him. Yet Christian New¬ 
comer occupied a place that no one but himself was able to fill. 

The account of his connection with the movement under 
Otterbein will be given in his own words: “Already for a 


PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT 153 


considerable time I had been acquainted with William Otter- 
bein and George Adam Geeting, two preachers of the German 
Reformed Church,* and had frequently heard them preach in 
the neighborhood of my place of residence. These individuals, 
endowed by God, preached powerfully, and not like the 
scribes. Their discourses made uncommon impressions on the 
hearts of the hearers. They insisted on the necessity of 
genuine repentance and conversion, on the knowledge of a 
pardon of sin, and in consequence thereof, a change of heart 
and renovation of spirit. Many secure and unconcerned 
sinners were by their instrumentality awakened from their 
sleep of sin and death, were converted from darkness to light, 
and from the power of sin and Satan unto God. They soon 
collected many adherents and followers of the doctrines that 
they preached, from the multitudes that congregated to hear 
them. Those persons that held to and embraced these doc¬ 
trines were by them formed into societies, and were called 
Otterbein's People, but the worldly-minded gave them the 
nick-name Dutch Methodists, which, in those days, was con¬ 
sidered slanderous. As these men preached the same doctrine 
that I had experienced, and which, according to my views and 
discernment, so perfectly agreed with the doctrine of Jesus 
Christ and his apostles, I associated with them and joined 
their society; and, blessed be God, although I withdrew myself 
from the Mennonite Society, on account of the want of the 
life and power of religion among them, I never in any wise 
felt condemned for so doing. On the contrary, I have received 
many a blessing of God when assembled with my new brethren. 
The work of grace was now spreading very rapidly among the 
German population in the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania 
and from every quarter resounded the call, 'Come over and 
help us.' The harvest was great and the laborers few. About 
this time it was frequently required of me by my brethren to 

♦The name German Reformed for Otterbein and Geeting, was, for that period, altogether 
proper. But even in this paragraph Newcomer takes up the distinctive beginnings of the 
religious movement and insensibly merges them in the church in which he lived and wrought, 
that church furnishing their proper interpretation, and being, in his mind, entitled to include 
ts rudimentary beginnings. 



154 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


attend meetings that were appointed by the people without 
my knowledge.” 

The account given is of value as illustrating the stage of 
advancement that, at this early time, the revival-movement 
had reached; for the beginning of Newcomer's preaching, as 
here referred to, dates from the year 1777. At the time to 
which the description applies, therefore, the Pietistic move¬ 
ment exclusively within the Reformed Church had ceased. 
All classes on turning from their sins were received into the 
now numerous “societies.” Newcomer became an addition 
to the preachers already in the field. The connection with the 
Mennonite wing in Pennsylvania was now renewed and formed 
into a perfect bond. Boehm's expulsion, about this time, cut 
the last barrier that restrained him. With the close of the 
Revolutionary War the last impediments were removed. 

Another record of the progress of the religious movement 
is to be found in the articles adopted January 1, 1785, for 
Mr. Otterbein's church in Baltimore. In the fourteenth article 
reference is made to the “various societies in Pennsylvania, 
Maryland, and Virginia” that stood “under the superin¬ 
tendence of Wm. Otterbein.” The fifteenth article refers to 
the “preachers and exhorters” already in the field. 

The account of Rev. J. W. Runkle, as given in the “ Fathers 
of the Reformed Church,” gives evidence, furthermore, that 
Mr. Otterbein's work was not without its clashing with the 
representatives and methods of the Reformed Church. In 
1787 Mr. Runkle expressed a regret that, when the congrega¬ 
tion in Loudon County, Virginia, desired to dispense with his 
services and secure those of the evangelical Weimer, already 
referred to as one of the “united ministers,” Mr. Otterbein 
sided with the congregation. In 1790 and 1793 Runkle again 
complained that Mr. Otterbein and those holding his views 
sought to draw away “the religious portion” of his members.* 

Some space will now be claimed by formal meetings held 
by Mr. Otterbein and his co-laborers. It is said that from 

*Dr. Harbaugh says that Runkle “most decidedly disapproved of the wild movement 
which, in his time grew, into the sect of the United Brethren in Christ, as well as of all Metho- 
distic extravagance in general.” 



PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT 155 


1766* the preachers engaged in the revival-work came together 
as often as once a year, generally at a great meeting, to consult 
over their work and to encourage one another. It is certain 
that for some years before 1789 there were meetings at which 
the attendance of the preachers was a special feature. The 
discipline of the United Brethren Church adopted in 1815 
contains the following: “Several great meetings were ap¬ 
pointed and held annually. On such occasions Mr. Otterbein 
would hold particular conversations with the preachers then 
present, and represent to them the importance of the ministry, 
and the necessity of their utmost endeavor to save souls. 

“At one of these meetings it was resolved to hold a confer¬ 
ence with all the preachers, in order to take into consideration 
in what manner they might be most useful.” The conference 
referred to was held in 1789, in Baltimore, in Mr. Otterbein’s 
parsonage, and laid the first formal basis for the United Breth¬ 
ren. First, an account will be given of the preachers cooperat¬ 
ing with Mr. Otterbein, and then some account of the pro¬ 
ceedings, and the significance of the conference. 

The members present were William Otterbein, Martin 
Boehm, George A. Geeting, Christian Newcomer, Henry 
Weidner, Adam Lehman, and John Ernst. The absent mem¬ 
bers were Benedict Schwope, Henry Baker, Simon Herre, 
Frederick Schaffer, Martin Crider, Christopher Grosh, and 
Abraham Troxel. Those already prominently introduced need 
not be noticed here. 

Henry Weidner was born in Switzerland. His excellent 
talents had received fair cultivation. As early as 1785 he was 
an elder in Mr. Otterbein's church in Baltimore. He was a 
leader of one of the Baltimore “classes” in 1774, and was 
afterward licensed to preach by the “united ministers.” He 
traveled and preached extensively. About 1790 he moved to 
Virginia. He ever remained dear to the heart of Mr. Otter¬ 
bein. He died in 1811 near Baltimore. 

*If the date 1766, as here given, has good historical foundation, the meeting at Isaac 
Long’s would, with the greatest probability, belong to that particular year. The statement 
is in error as to some things, as for instance, in regard to the uninterrupted attendance of all 
the preachers. In its general character, or in some of its elements, however, the statement 
appears to be not without foundation. 



156 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Adam Lehman in 1774 lived on Sam's Creek, near the 
northern line of Frederick County, Maryland. While here 
he was one of the leaders of the Sam’s Creek “class." At an 
early time there were many followers of Mr. Otterbein at this 
place. He afterward moved to near Frederick. Rev. Peter 
Kemp was his son-in-law. Mr. Lehman's preaching probably 
began about 1777. He died in 1823, aged ninety-one. 

John Ernst began to preach prior to 1789, while living, 
as it seems, near the home of Martin Boehm in Lancaster 
County, Pennsylvania. About 1790 he began to preach at 
East Berlin, now in Adams County, and at other places. 
Mr. Otterbein, for a number of years, came regularly from 
Baltimore to administer the Lord's supper to the people that 
he served. Mr. Ernst is claimed as having been a minister of 
the Reformed Church, but he does not appear to have been 
ordained by that church, or to have been at any time other 
than one of “Otterbein's preachers."* He was a good man 
and an earnest and successful preacher. He died in 1804. 

Benedict Schwope has already been referred to. At the 
time of the conference he was possibly already in Kentucky. 

Henry Baker, at the time of the conference, was a member 
of Otterbein's vestry. Why his name does not occur in the 
list of members present is not explained. He afterward moved 
to Virginia, and still later to Tennessee, where he died at some 
time before 1812. He was a laborious and successful evangelist. 

Of Simon Iierre (Herr) little is known beyond the fact 
that he was introduced into the ministry immediately by 
Otterbein, and that he was highly esteemed by him. He la¬ 
bored in Virginia, though he doubtless belonged to the Herrs 
of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and would therefore have 
been originally a Mennonite. 

Frederick Schaffer was originally a member of the Re¬ 
formed Church. He was a diligent laborer and an acceptable 
preacher. He had the distinguished honor of assisting Mr. 

*“It is certain that he was not [connected with the synod] during the first few years of his 
ministry in York County, from the fact that the church at Holtzschwam * * * was 

locked against him, on the very ground that he was not in connection with the synod, and that 
he belonged to what were called the 'Otterbein and Geeting People’—out of which grew the 
sect of the United Brethren in Christ.”—Harbaugh. 



PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT 157 


Otterbein during the last days of the latter, of being one of 
the three formally ordained by him, and of filling his pulpit 
for several months after his death. He labored among the 
United Brethren until his death, which seems to have occurred 
about 1814. 

Martin Crider has the distinction of having entered upon 
the work of preaching, after Otterbein and Boehm, the first 
among the ministers of the revival-movement. He must 
therefore have been already preaching in 1772. He was 
originally a Mennonite. His home was near Lebanon, Penn¬ 
sylvania, where he died and was buried in 1826, at the age of 
eighty-six. 

Christopher Grosh was of Moravian descent. His home 
was near New Holland, in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. 
In many respects he was a superior man. He perceived the 
necessity of organization and system in advance of many of 
his brethren. Immediately about him there was a small 
circle of evangelical preachers, not all of whom went so far as 
directly to connect themselves with the United Brethren. 
While he was in the fellowship of these men, he was also im- 
portanty connected with the rise and progress of the United 
Brethren. Those that knew well his work have asserted that 
the part that he performed has never been properly recognized. 
He died in 1829. 

Abraham Troxel was of the Ornish section of the Mennon- 
ites. He learned, however, to distinguish between the grace 
of God in the soul and the cut and fastenings of garments. 
He was born in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, in 1753. 
After being silenced by the Ornish on account of his evangelical 
preaching, he became, in 1782, associated with the preachers 
of the revival-movement. For some time prior to 1804 he 
lived near the town of Lebanon. In 1804 he moved across 
the mountains to Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. His 
home was about two miles from Mt. Pleasant. Living at this 
place he had the greatest influence in encouraging and helping 
the work in all the region beyond him. He died in 1825. 

Undoubtedly to the names already given, the name of 
Leonard Harbaugh should be added. He was one of the 


158 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


original elders of Mr. Otterbein’s ehurch in Baltimore. He was 
a prominent architect, whose skill is spoken of by Griffith in 
his Annals. He was the leader of one of the Baltimore “classes” 
in 1774. In 1812 Mr. Asbury spoke of him as “once famous, 
gifted, laborious, useful.” He then added, “He is now only a 
great mechanic, alas!” 

While the above list does not include the names of all the 
preachers engaged in the religious movement among the 
Germans prior to 1789, it yet gives a comparatively clear and 
full view of the strength and character of the movement. 
There were numbered among those present five on the Re¬ 
formed side and two on the Mennonite side. Among those 
absent there were four on the Reformed side, three on the Men¬ 
nonite side, and there was one representative from the Morav¬ 
ians. The people represented by these ministers were, however, 
much more diverse in their original church-connections. 

Having thus looked upon the preachers of this awakening 
among the Germans, we next inquire the reason for the confer¬ 
ence of 1789, and in regard to the work done. Before this 
time the movement was under the direction of Otterbein and 
Boehm, not in any formal way, but because it was to so large 
an extent a product of themselves, and because as yet it had 
no complete character apart from themselves. 

The primary purpose of the conference was to gain a 
fuller knowledge of the field, to unify the work being done and 
to plan for larger and more permanent results. The time had 
come for concerted action and for the strength and security 
derived from organization. The purpose included something 
more than planning for the work immediately ahead and yet 
it did not contemplate any elaborate basis of creed or rules.* 
Prior to 1789 the licensing of preachers, the arrangement and 
supervision of work were left to individual determination and 
informal conferences in connection with great meetings. Be¬ 
ginning with 1789 there came to be more of regularity and 
accountability, more of facing to the future. 

♦The writer has become fully convinced that the creed and rules of discipline referred to 
this conference by Spayth, which reference was at first accepted by the writer as correct, are 
more properly accounted for in connection with a later development. 



PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT 159 


A second conference in 1791 at John Spangler’s house,* 
eight miles from York, Pennsylvania, marked an advance in 
the work begun by the earlier conference. 

The members recognized by the conference of 1791 were 
as follows: Present —Wm. Otterbein, Martin Boehm, George 
A. Geeting, Christian Newcomer, Adam Lehman, John Ernst, 
J. G. Pfrimmer, John Neidig, and Benedict Sanders. Absent — 
Plenry Weidner, Henry Baker, Martin Crider, F. Schaffer, 
Christopher Grosh, Abraham Troxel, Christian Crum, G. 
Fortenbach, D. Strickler, J. Hershey, Simon Herre, J. Hautz, 
and Benedict Schwope. 

Of a few of the new preachers an account will be given. 
John George Pfrimmer, one of the most talented and successful 
of Mr. Otterbein’s co-laborers, was born in Alsace, an old 
French province recovered from Germany at the close of the 
World War, and came to Pennsylvania in 1788. He had been 
well educated. Not long after his arrival in this country he 
was awakened and converted under the influence of the wide¬ 
spread religious movement whose history we have been follow¬ 
ing. He soon felt himself called to preach, and in 1790 entered 
upon the work. First in eastern Pennsylvania, then in the 
Susquehanna valley, and as early as 1801 west of the Alleghe¬ 
nies, he preached with rare diligence, power, and success. 
After 1801 there was some alienation between him and the 
other preachers, apparently in consequence of the half-and-half 
relation that he sustained, for a time, to the Reformed Church. 
His earnestness and devotion to the same work in which they 
were engaged, however, soon again made him one with them. 
In 1807 he made a visit to Indiana, and in 1808 he settled in 
Harrison County of that territory, a few miles southeast of 
Corydon. He early became an important member of Miami 
Conference. He was informally ordained by leaders in the 
revival movement and in 1815 at the Miami Conference was 
ordained with the formal laying on of hands. Further notice 
will later be taken of him and his work. 

*Mr. Spangler was a large land-holder and a substantial citizen. In church connection 
the family were Reformed. Mr. Otterbein and his colaborers won their way to the most 
substantial and best-to-do people; but at the same time they neither shrank nor despaired in 
the face of the greatest wretchedness and degradation. 



160 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


John Neidig was born in Berks County, Pennsylvania, in 
1765. Soon afterward his father moved to the neighborhood 
of Harrisburg. The Neidig family were, in Berks County, 
connected with the Reformed Church, but in their new home 
the younger members of the family became associated with 
the Mennonites and became members of that church. John 
Neidig when in his twenty-fifth year, was chosen by lot to be a 
preacher. He was naturally serious, and prior to his selection 
he had been seeking and praying for a clean heart. He felt 
burdened with the responsibility of the ministerial office. 
When he obtained the divine blessing, and when his spiritual 
eyes were opened, he declared evangelical truth with such 
pointedness and force that his Mennonite brethren would no 
longer tolerate him. Thus he was led to present himself for 
membership at the conference of 1791. Mr. Spayth gives the 
following description of him. 

“Among all the brethren yet noticed, or hereafter to be 
noticed, Brother Neidig was the Nathaniel. He possessed an 
excellent spirit,—meek, gentle, just. Of them that were with¬ 
out, he had a good report. The virtues and graces requisite 
in an elder in the church of God were all exhibited in his 
character; and the clear light of his beautiful and holy life, 
which shed a luster along his pathway, was never extinguished, 
nor even suffered a momentary eclipse. As a preacher, he 
was able by sound doctrine to exhort and convince the gain- 
sayers. His language was select and chaste, and his manner 
inimitable.” 

He was faithful in his attendance at the conferences, and 
was abundant in ministerial labors. From 1828 to 1831 he 
was pastor of Otterbein's congregation in Baltimore. He died 
in 1844. 

The history of John Neidig is largely the history of the 
formation of the United Brethren Church. He was both Re¬ 
formed and Mennonite. When the Mennonites disowned him 
the young people of the community as well as older people 
gathered about him and he came to have a large following 
known as Neidig’s people (Neidig’s Leute). It was not until 
1840 that they came to be regularly “classed” and to be 


PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT 161 


served by regularly appointed preachers. A point of very 
great interest was the building of the “Neidig Church/' in 
1793 or shortly thereafter, in what is now the town of Oberlin 
near Harrisburg. Next to the “so-called schoolhouse” or 
meeting house at Antietam it was the first church built by the 
United Brethren of which we have an authentic account; 
Otterbein’s church at Baltimore being recognized as an inde¬ 
pendent church. Fortunately the account of the building of 
the church, in the handwriting of John Neidig has been pre¬ 
served. The church lot was not deeded at the time and the 
contributors to the building of the church were not definitely 
organized into a religious body but they were the same people 
that grew into the organized United Brethren Church and 
later received a regular title to the church property. The 
building, a stone structure, was for the times substantial and 
commodious. In the account of the subscriptions toward the 
payment for the church we have the only example that has 
come down to us from the period before 1800, of the name, 
The United Brethren (Die Vereinigte,) given here in the 
plural Die Vereinigten, translated The United or The United 
Brethren. It may not be agreeable to our pride to know that 
in the construction of the building between five and six gallons 
of whiskey were bought or donated for the use of the workmen. 
Yet here we have an insight into the times. It should be a 
source of gratification to us to know that the principles of the 
gospel, in connection with new conditions and new appre¬ 
hensions, have carried the Christian church beyond the advice 
given by Paul to Timothy concerning wine, and beyond many 
of the customs regarded as innocent by the venerated fathers 
of our church as well as of other churches. 

Christian and Henry Crum, twin brothers, were brought 
up not far from Frederick, Maryland. Their parents be¬ 
longed to the Reformed Church. They were earnest, holy 
men, and both became itinerants. Their homes were subse¬ 
quently in Virginia. Henry, however, was not a preacher in 
1791. Christian labored extensively, and was acceptable and 
useful as a preacher. He was highly esteemed by Mr. Otter- 


162 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


bein, who, toward the close of his life, made him a present of 
his Bible and hymn-book. He died in 1823. 

John Hershey was of Mennonite descent. He lived at 
Hagerstown, Maryland. While he did not preach as con¬ 
stantly as some, he was yet a pillar in his community, and was 
generally in his place in the conferences. 

Though for a time after 1791 there were no formal con¬ 
ferences, the ministers yet frequently met at great meetings, 
and, under the superintendency of Otterbein and Boehm, new 
men were licensed, and the work was carried forward with 
increasing success. George Benedum, forty-three years in the 
ministry, preaching first in Pennsylvania and afterward in 
Ohio, began to preach in 1794. Jacob Baulus, preaching the 
gospel first in Maryland and then in Ohio, through a period of 
fifty-six years, was licensed in 1795. Abraham Mayer, whose 
home was in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, was for 
thirty years a monument of faithfulness. He began his minis¬ 
try in 1796. Even the administering of the ordinances was 
conceded, on a cautious plan, to suitable ones among the 
preachers. 

To indicate the nature and extent of the work that Mr. 
Otterbein’s labors had been the chief instrument in setting in 
motion, and that he was now occupied in directing and watching 
over, a few extracts from Christian Newcomer’s Journal will be 
introduced. Of course it is Newcomer himself whom we 
shall follow. The following is the first entry in the Journal: 

1795, October 27. This morning I left home; rode 
through Mercersburg to Spruce Creek, where I stayed for the 
night.—28. This morning I am well by the mercy of God, and 
willing to do and suffer all things that the hand of my Maker 
shall lay on me. I had rather a restless night and when 
endeavoring to raise my thoughts to God, my mind was 
diverted so that I had but a small share of the spirit of prayer. 
Oh, what an impatient and unfit creature I am! Oh, the weak¬ 
ness and poverty of spirit! * * *—29. This day I traveled 
all the day long. About dusk, the path I rode led me up a 
tolerably high mountain. The ascent was very steep. I 
therefore got from my horse and drove him before me. Present¬ 
ly he commenced ascending at such a gate that I was unable 
to follow. By this time it had become dark, and I had lost 


PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT 163 


all sight of him; but, blessed be God, on the top of the moun¬ 
tain I found him waiting for me. 

The next extract indicates the appointments included 
within what he calls his “ circuit.” At some of the places single 
appointments were made by special request of the people, or 
at his own convenience in making his trips. Other places 
were served regularly. The different preachers at this time 
had circuits about their own homes, which they served from 
year to year. The following is the extract: 

1795, December 11. This morning I set out again from 
my home for the circuit, and spoke at the first appointment 
from John iii. 14, and at VirumbaclTs, in Virginia, at candle¬ 
light; the 15th at Frederick Kemp's, from II. Peter i. 5-7; 
16th at Liberty, from John iii. 14-18; 17th at Bishop's, in the 
forenoon from Luke xvii. 12-19, in the evening, at a school- 
house, from Romans i. 5; on the 18th at Shryack's, from 
John iii. 14; 19th at Degis', from Luke xvii. 14; 20th at Em- 
mitsburg, from Psalms i. 1; 21st at Harbaugh's; 22d at Chris¬ 
tian King's, from Psalms i. 5-7; 23d, returned home. 

These appointments were situated in three different states, 
and yet they made up only about one-third of his circuit. It 
was a part of his work, also, in company with Geeting and 
others, frequently to visit the fields that were occupied by 
other preachers, or that were without regular preaching. Along 
the line of these trips several great meetings would be held. 
The following extract gives an account of a section of one of 
these trips. 

1796, April 16. I left home for Pennsylvania.—17. I 
was at a place called Turkey; 18th, at the Monocacy.—19th. 
Held a meeting in the forenoon in what is called Paradise;* 
and in the evening at Strickler's f Here we had a two-days' 
meeting, on the 20th and 21st. Administered the sacrament 
of the Lord's supper Blessed be the Lord for all his mercies. 
I preached in the evening at Strasburg.—22d. I had an 
appointment at Mr. S.'s.—23d, 24th, and 25th, we had a 
sacramental meeting at Sinking Springs, f I preached the first 
day from the ninth psalm. Glory be to God, it was a blessed 
time.—26th. This day I came in company with Brother 


*John Spangler’s. York County, fLancaster County, 
fBerks County. 



164 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Geeting to what is called Berner’s Church, but we were not 
permitted to preach therein. So Brother Geeting spoke in 
the grave-yard adjoining the church, to a numerous congrega¬ 
tion, with remarkable power.—27th. We held a meeting at a 
place called the Black Ridge Church. Here we were also 
refused permission to preach in the church, and Brother Geeting 
spoke in the school-house adjoining.—28th. I preached at 
Mr. S.’s, from Psalms xxxiv. 15.—29th. Our appointment was 
at a church called Pibob’s. Brother Geeting spoke in the 
forenoon, and I in the afternoon from John iii. 14.—30th. 
This day our quarterly meeting commenced at Brother Troxel’s. 
I made the beginning by speaking from Luke xi. 21 and 22.— 
May 1. This forenoon Brother Geeting preached from the 
forty-seventh psalm. In the afternoon Brother Boehm gave 
an interesting discourse from these words: ‘The Son of man 
is come to seek and to save that which was lost.’ 

A few extracts will now be given indicating something of 
the general work of Mr. Boehm and others: 

1800, August 30. This forenoon Father Boehm preached 
in Hauser’s Meeting-house. His son Henry spoke after him. 
In the afternoon they spoke at Geeting’s Meeting-house. We 
tarried together at Hess’.—Sept. 1st. This morning my soul 
is particularly drawn out in secret prayer, for sanctifying grace. 
0 Lord, sanctify me wholly and cleanse me from all sin, for 
Jesus’ sake. We set out for Virginia, and came to Christian 
Crum’s, where we stayed for the night.—2d. This day a 
great congregation was assembled here. Father Boehm 
preached first. I followed him. The Friend of sinners was 
present at the meeting. At night we held a meeting at Doctor 
Senseny’s, in Winchester. Father Boehm preached with great 
power. A Methodist brother spoke after him in the English 
language. I stayed for the night with Mr. Lauck.—4th. 
This day we had a meeting at Abraham Niswander’s. The 
people were very attentive. I trust some good was done. 
We rode to a Mr. A. Boehm’s. I preached here from Heb. 
x i. 15. Henry Boehm followed me,—5th. This forenoon we 
held a meeting at Jacob Funkhouser’s. Rode thence to 
Woodstock. * * * —11th. This day a great many people 
collected from far and near. I preached from Acts xiv. 22. 
Father Boehm followed me. He had not spoken long when 
quite unexpectedly several persons rose simultaneously to their 
feet, clapping and striking their hands, and with an ecstasy 
of joy shouting and praising God. At night we held meeting 
again, which lasted till past midnight. The house could not 


PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT 165 


contain all the people that assembled. Father Boehm bap¬ 
tized young Daniel Strickler and his companion.—12 h. This 
day we rode to Peter Biber's, n Augusta County. * * *—20th. 
This day a sacramental meeting commenced at Abraham Nis- 
wander's. Very suitable accommodations were made under 
the open canopy of heaven. I preached first, from Luke 
xxiv. 46 and 47. Brother Crum followed me. At night I 
preached at Senseny's, from the words, 'They that sow in 
tears shall reap in joy.’ Met the class and had a very good 
time.—21st. This day a vast multitude of people was col¬ 
lected. Father Boehm delivered the first discourse. Some 
other brother followed him; but it appeared to me as if the 
power of darkness hovered over the assembly. The word 
spoken had not the desired effect. In the afternoon I preached 
from II. Peter i. 19, with considerable liberty. Henry Boehm 
followed me. * * *—23d. Today we had meeting at Hauser's 
where we met Brother Pfrimmer. Thence reached home." 

Many entries like the following occur: “1799, June 1. 
Today a sacramental meeting commenced at Brother Isaac 
Long's. On our arrival at the place appointed we found 
Brothers Boehm, Pfrimmer, Neidig, Grosh, Crider, and Shuey. 
Brother Pfrimmer commenced the meeting. Other brethren 
spoke after him. At night we had a happy meeting at Abraham 
Hershey's. 

Thus we have accounts of a field extending from Berks 
County in Pennsylvania to Augusta County in Virginia, and 
from Baltimore, Maryland, to Westmoreland County, Penn¬ 
sylvania, which Newcomer visited in 1799. 

We will now notice, through the aid of Newcomer's 
Journal, some of the instances in which Mr. Otterbein's pres¬ 
ence and labors were afforded. It will be sufficient, for the 
most part, to refer to some of the great meetings* at Antietam,! 
which were always held at Whitsuntide, and which he almost 
invariably attended. 

♦The great meetings were sometimes held in groves, yet they were not camp-meetings. 
Sometimes they were held in barns and sometimes in private houses. The meetings were 
called great meetings, quarterly meetings, sacramental meetings, and two-days’ meetings, 
according to the circumstances belonging to them. They did not have the form of our pro¬ 
tracted meetings, yet they served the same purpose. They seldom exceeded two or three 
days in duration. 

fThis was at the home of Geeting, in Washington County, Maryland. Geeting lived on 
the Little Antietam, about a mile from where it empties into the Large Antietam. It was 
near by, on the Large Antietam, that the battle of Antietam, in the Civil War, was fought. 



166 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


1797. June 3. This day the sacramental meeting 
commenced at or near the Antietam. Even at the beginning 
the Lord was present in power. In the evening we held a 
prayer meeting at brother Samuel Baker’s. Several brethren 
from Baltimore were present. We had an excellent time.— 
4th, Sunday. This afternoon William Otterbein preached 
from Eph. ii. 1-6. Oh, how conclusively did he reason! How 
did he endeavor to persuade his hearers to work out the salva¬ 
tion of their souls! How did he endeavor to convince all of 
the necessity of vital, experimental religion, and a thorough 
change of heart! The congregation of people was unusually 
large, and all seemed to pay the most profound attention. 
Poor unworthy me had to exhort after him. Then Otterbein 
and Geeting administered the Lord’s supper. Brother Troxel 
preached in the afternoon—5th. This day we had an exceed¬ 
ingly glorious time. A great number, both of males and 
females, young people and hoary-headed sinners, were con¬ 
victed, and some happily converted to God. 

1798. May 26th and 27th we had a sacramental meeting 
at the Antietam. Brothers Otterbein, Geeting, Grosh, Sen- 
seny, and myself were present. Honor and praise be to God 
for all his mercies. It surely was a warm time. 

1799. May 11th. I attended a sacramental meeting at 
the Antietam. Wm. Otterbein delivered the first discourse. 
Oh, what a wonderful man he is to preach and declare the 
counsel of God—12th. This morning we had our love-feast, 
or professing meeting. Wm. Otterbein preached again with 
such power and unction from on high that all present were 
very much astonished. 0 Lord, grant that the word spoken 
may bring forth fruit unto eternal life. Otterbein and Geeting 
administered the sacrament, and we had a blessed time on the 
occasion. 

1799. September 27th. Rode to Peter Kemp’s, where I 
was rejoiced to see Father William Otterbein. Several neigh¬ 
bors collected in the evening, and we had a delightful little 
meeting.—28th. This morning we set off together for a two- 
days’ meeting at Mr. J. D. Bishop’s, on Fishing Creek. Father 
Otterbein preached first, then John Neidig. We had a blessed 
time—Sunday 29th. This day an extraordinary number of 
people attended the meeting. Otterbein preached with great 
energy and power; so did some of the other brethren. 

1800. May 31st. Today I set out for the quarterly or 
great meeting, as it is generally called, at the Antietam. 
Father Otterbein was there and preached first, from Psalms 
cxviii.22-25. At night I spoke from Acts xiv. 22—Sunday, 


PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT 167 


June 1st. This morning we had our love-feast. On account 
of a heavy rain we could not have public preaching, as usual, 
under the trees. The meeting-house could not hold half the 
people collected. Preparations were quickly made to accom¬ 
modate them in the barn of old Jacob Hess. Otterbein spoke 
first; I spoke after him. He and Brother Geeting distributed 
the bread and wine. The hearts of many believers and specta¬ 
tors were tendered. * * *—3d. Today I arrived at Peter 
Kemp's, where I found Father Otterbein. Some people were 
collected. I had to preach and he spoke after me —4th. This 
day we had a meeting at Fishing Creek. Otterbein preached 
with wonderful power. 

Many years later the memory of these meetings was 
fondly cherished. The children were told to hurry and get 
their work done, as there was to be a great meeting and Father 
Otterbein was coming. When, from any cause, the meeting 
was to be held in the church, the children were left at home, to 
give room for older people. Frequently the people would be 
divided up and meetings would be held at three different places. 
At this time Otterbein was quite old, and as he was quite bald, 
he wore his study-cap under his hat, and when sitting on the 
platform in the grove he would remove his hat, but still wear 
the cap. On rising to speak, however, he took off the cap, and 
hung it on the branch of an overhanging tree.* The great 
power and sweetness of the gospel as it fell from the lips of 
Geeting long remained a cherished memory. Down to the 
present time, the great meetings at Antietam, now Keedysville, 
though modified somewhat of late, have been regularly held. 

Mr. Otterbein made frequent visits to different places in 
Pennsylvania and Virginia, as well as in Maryland. Even 
before 1800 he established Sunday-schools and prayer-meetings 
in connection with these extended labors.f When he was 
absent from Baltimore on his preaching-tours his place was 
filled by some one of the preachers already prominently men¬ 
tioned. 


*At a still later time he kept the study-cap on while preaching, even when preaching in 
his church. 

tRev. Thomas Winters, speaking of Otterbein and his co-workers says, “They came up 
into that part of the country in which I lived, Washington County, Maryland; created quite 
an excitement there, started prayer meetings and Sabbath-schools.” Thomas Winters re¬ 
ceived a license to preach from Otterbein in 1799. 



168 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


While he did not find a place in the Reformed Church for 
the work that he felt himself called to do, and while he met with 
great oppositions and trials from that source, he was not with¬ 
out friends and sympathizers in that church. On his part, he 
not only returned the measure of sympathy received, but 
continued to love and seek to benefit those that resisted his 
desires and efforts. At different times he showed his Christian 
spirit, and his love for his ancestral church, by declaring the 
gospel, when opportunities were afforded him, from Reformed 
pulpits, and by affording his presence on various occasions. 
In 1796, at the laying of the corner-stone of the Second Street 
Reformed Church, in Baltimore, after a sermon by the pastor, 
Reverend Troldenier, whom Otterbein esteemed, the latter made 
a short address. At the funeral of this minister, in 1800, Mr. 
Otterbein took part. Other simi'ar occasions could be named. 
His part, however, was much the same as that of Mr. Kurtz, 
the Lutheran minister in Baltimore, who participated at 
different times in the same meetings. When in 1818 Doctor 
Becker, the Reformed pastor in Baltimore, died, Reverend 
John Snyder, a successor of Mr. Otterbein, took part in the 
funeral exercises. 

Mr. Otterbein's relations to Mr. Asbury and the Metho¬ 
dists continued as in the first place they began. Mr. Asbury 
often preached in his church. At the Methodist general 
conference of 1792, the great three-days' debate in regard to 
Asbury’s powers in stationing the preachers was brought to a 
close at an evening session in his church. In 1786, Mr. Asbury 
made the following note in his journal: “I called on Mr. Otter¬ 
bein. We had some free conversation on the necessity of 
forming a church among the Dutch, holding conferences, the 
order of its government, and so forth." The conversation on 
a "plan of church-discipline," already referred to, had reference 
to the local church at Baltimore, and its more immediate sur¬ 
roundings. The present conversation meant much more. 
Mr. Otterbein, though freely conversing with Mr. Asbury on 
this important subject, was far from passive to the influence 
of others. Mr. Schwope and Mr. Weidner, as well as Mr. As¬ 
bury, urged Mr. Otterbein to copy from the Methodist plan; 


PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT 169 


but Mr. Otterbein moved slowly, and sought to read for him¬ 
self the divine will. This conversation was three years before 
the conference of 1789. 

The aim of the present chapter has been to cause Mr. Otter¬ 
bein to stand forth in his own actual environment. It will 
generally be conceded that, when a man creates largely the 
e'ements that make his sphere what it is, these are closely 
enough connected with his immediate self to deserve a recogni¬ 
tion in an account of his life. 

The history of Mr. Otterbein's life has now been traced, 
in most regards, down to the fall of 1800. We have followed 
him through years of toil and agonizing labor, and yet it 
scarcely dawns upon us that he is wearing out in the work— 
that he is even now a veteran. The fact of his diminished 
power to labor and endure is seen in the following entry, for 
the year 1797, in the Baltimore church-book: “Wm. Otter¬ 
bein saw fit to be assisted by two elders. He chose Philip 
Bier and Christian Matioth.” Of the three original elders, two 
had removed from Baltimore, and their places seem not to 
have been filled. Peter Hoffman still held his place. The 
choosing, in 1797, of the two elders meant more than the filling 
of vacant places. It meant that the services of elders were 
needed, in view of Mr. Otterbein's weight of years and the 
necessary demands from abroad, to relieve, as much as possible, 
his pastoral burden. But we must not think that his lease 
of life and labor was at the point of expiring. 




CHAPTER XII. 

OTTERBEIN AND THE REFORMED CHURCH. 

Want of Congeniality—Growing Alienation—Condition of the German 
Churches—Various Testimonies—Facts in General—Why some Mis¬ 
understood Otterbein—Otterbein’s Twofold Relation—Relation 
on the Reformed Side Vanishing—An Incident—Geeting’s 
Expulsion—Synod of 1806—Another Incident—Con¬ 
trary Testimonies Examined—Winters’ Testimony— 

Aurandt’s Testimony—The two Relations In¬ 
compatible— The Responsibility — State¬ 
ments of Dr. Benjamin Kurtz, Bishop 
Asbury, and Dr. Zacharias. 

/ T seems necessary, at this point, that we look with some 
carefulness into Mr. Otterbein's relations to the Reformed 
Church. From the time that he attained unto a full 
evangelical experience, during his period at Lancaster, 
he met, in his endeavors to reach true spiritual results in his 
ministry, with difficulties and discouragements in the different 
congregations that he served. After his cooperation with 
converted ministers outside of the Reformed Church, he lost 
sympathy in the ranks of the Reformed ministry. When he 
went to Baltimore, his relations became decidedly anomalous. 
Though he continued a member of the coetus, he served a 
congregation whose fundamental character was that of in¬ 
dependence of the Reformed coetus, and whose spirit and 
methods were utterly unlike anything existing in the German 
Reformed Church. His efforts, already spoken of, to infuse 
more of an evangelical spirit into the coetus would not regain 
or increase to him the good-will of the Reformed ministry. 

As early as 1772, through his immediate agency, laymen 
were brought into the work of preaching, and after the war of 
the Revolution these lay preachers were brought into close 
cooperation with other preachers that had been led into the 
field as the result of the meeting that took place at Isaac 
Long's. Meantime new accessions had been made to the 

171 


172 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


preaching force. Otterbein and Boehm were the leaders. In 
1786, Mr. Otterbein had reached a point at which he was ready 
to engage in a “free conversation” as to the necessity of forming 
a church among the Germans. His great aims were to secure 
the conversion of the people and to build up a spiritual church- 
membership. The methods that he used and encouraged with 
a view to the accomplishment of these ends, including the 
employment of zealous and capable converts in preaching, and 
the introduction of the class-system into every community 
where there were awakened and converted people, were the 
occasion of his conflicts and trials. 

It would be pleasant indeed to suppose that he did not, 
in so good a work, meet with these oppositions; but devout, 
retiring, conciliatory man that he was, with none of those 
elements that mark men that desire to rule, or head a party, 
how could we account, except on the ground of the most serious 
opposition, for even his slightest and most temporary separa¬ 
tion from those in whose fellowship he had been laboring. 

The condition of the German churches, as described by 
writers in those churches themselves, was sufficiently deplor¬ 
able Doctor Helfenstein, of the Reformed Church, gives the 
following incident, which indicates the way in which revivals 
were regarded: 

In the year 1790, my father, minister in Germantown, 
departed this life. An invitation was sent to Reverend Anthony 
Hautz to visit that church. He did so. They gave him a call. 
He accepted it, returned home, and shortly afterward gave 
them notice that he declined it. The reason he gave was, 
that if the Reverend Helfenstein had his difficulties in the congre¬ 
gation, how could he be able to manage them? The difficulties 
were the prayer-meetings that were at that time introduced 
into the congregation. There was then a great revival in 
the church. Numbers were awakened, and met together in 
prayer-meetings. To this there was great opposition, and 
much commotion was caused in the congregation. 

Doctor Nevin of the same church, in his twenty-eighth 
lecture on the Heidelberg Catechism, published in 1842, gives 
the following statements in regard to the early condition of the 
Reformed Church: “To be confirmed and then to take the 


OTTERBEIN AND THE REFORMED CHURCH 173 


sacrament occasionally was counted by the multitude all that 
was necessary to make one a good Christian, if only a tolerable 
decency of outward life were maintained besides, without any 
regard at all to the religion of the heart. True, serious piety 
was indeed often treated with open and marked scorn. In the 
bosom of the church itself it was stigmatized as Sckivaermerei, 
Kopfliaengerei* or miserable, driveling Methodism. The idea 
of the new birth was treated as a Pietistic whimery. Experi¬ 
mental religion, in all its forms, was eschewed as a new-fangled 
invention of cunning impostors, brought in to turn the heads of 
the weak, and to lead captive silly women. Prayer-meetings 
were held to be a spiritual abomination. Family worship was 
a species of saintly affectation, barely tolerable in the case of 
ministers (though many of them gloried in having no altar in 
their houses), but absolutely disgraceful for common Christians. 
To show an awakened concern on the subject of religion, a 
disposition to call on God in daily secret prayer, was to incur 
certain reproach. * * * The picture, it must be acknowledged, 
is dark, but not more so than the truth of history would seem 
to require.” 

The above description was not given in the interest of 
“sects,” as further statements in the same lecture show. After 
speaking of the losses from the German Reformed Church to 
the Presbyterians and others, Doctor Nevin says, “With the 
vast inroads that have been made on our territory by ranting 
and fanatical sects, of different names, we have less reason to 
be pleased. Specially noticeable under this character are two 
forms of religious exorbitation that started forth originally 
from the Reformed Church itself, and have since acquired very 
considerable volume, made up in great measure of German 
material, though not all gathered from the Reformed connec¬ 
tion. Otterbein of Baltimore, at a comparatively early period 
(1789), became the founder of one of these organizations. In 
the first instance, he was a good man who seems to have been 
driven into a false position by the cold, dead temper that he 
found generally prevalent in the regular church.” He then 

♦Favorite epithets were “ Strdbblere ” and “ Knie rutscher,” the latter being applied to 
Otterbein's Baltimore congregation. 



174 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


speaks of the movement begun by Winebrenner as originating 
“with less purity of intention." 

Dr. Benjamin Kurtz, of the Lutheran Church, in the 
Lutheran Observer of January 12, 1855, says, “Some thirty-five 
years ago, when God in his mercy sanctioned our labors with 
a glorious outpouring of his Spirit, and for the first time in 
our ministry granted us a mighty revival, the opposition of the 
world and the devil was almost unparalleled. A revival in 
the Lutheran Church was a new thing in that day. We had 
never heard of but one, and that was in Brother Reek's church 
in Winchester, Virginia. He can testify to the bitterness, 
malevolence, and awful wickedness that characterized the 
adversaries of such divine visitations in those days of ignorance, 
hardness of heart, and spiritual blindness." 

The slowness to understand and to fall in with what some 
truly saw to be the duty of the hour, is not the reproach of the 
German churches alone, but is to be set down to the blindness 
of all the old churches of the period.* The Congregationalists 
honor Jonathan Edwards, but they do not seek to extenuate 
the treatment that he received. The cause of his difficulties, 
too, was, in a large sense, his views of church-membership and 
his connection with revivals. In the Presbyterian Church, the 
Tennants were “secretly despised by the synod generally;" 
and in 1741 the synod wrote, “We excluded the four Tennants, 
Blair, and others." Mr. Erskine was “hated" in the Presby¬ 
terian Church in Scotland. Yet today the Presbyterian Church 
records all of these names in the lists of its worthies. The 
Episcopal Church of England acknowledges the mistreatment 
that it so liberally bestowed upon John Wesley. Joseph Cook 
says that the great contribution that American Christianity 
has made to the churches of Europe is the presenting of a 
method for efficient revival-work. Europe perhaps thinks 
that it cost America nothing to develop and mature such a plan. 

♦Many of the representatives of these old churches are now commendably active in 
revival work; and the tenacity with which they adhere to Bible truth in forming anew the 
divine impress upon the heart, and their unswerving application of biblical rule to spiritual 
experience and outward life will do much to protract the day of revivals down to the distant 
future. These things being thus, would it not be sad if those that call themselves in a special 
sense the children of Otterbein should now allow themselves to be outstripped in the work of 
gathering the spiritual harvest? 



OTTERBEIN AND THE REFORMED CHURCH 175 


Some in the Reformed ministry sympathized with Mr. 
Otterbein and his work. Others, who themselves may have 
been good men, doubted the propriety of the methods used by 
him, and perhaps had their doubts as to the character of the 
results attained.* Connected with the very highest efforts and 
highest products of Christianity there have been specious 
counterfeits and serious abuses. Ages of spiritual quickening 
have also been ages of imposture and grotesque combinations. 
But these developments do not condemn such quickenings 
themselves. Luther said to some that had suddenly outgrown 
the conditions of healthful spiritual life, and that alleged the 
Spirit as their guide, "I slap your Spirit on the snout.” The 
language was not particularly severe for Luther to use, and not 
too severe to be applied to some people in more recent times. 
John Wesley, when troubled by the caprice of those that took 
their own uncertain impulses for the Spirit's promptings, and 
whom he called mystics, using the term mystic in its least 
favorable sense, spoke as follows: “All other enemies of 
Christianity are triflers; the mystics are the most dangerous. 
They stab it in the vitals, and its most serious professors are 
most likely to fall by them.” Asbury said that “diabolical 
impressions may sometimes resemble those made by the Spirit 
of God,” and that “all impressions, dreams, visions, and so 
forth, should be brought to the standard of the Holy Scrip¬ 
tures, and if they do not perfectly correspond therewith, they 
should be rejected.” Mr. Otterbein recognized these perils 
as clearly as any one, and sought the authorization, producing 
cause, and rule for spiritual exercises beyond and far above 
the deceitful sphere of the human heart. Some of his fellow 
ministers did not care to understand his aims, or the necessity 
and warrant for his measures. They only knew that his zeal 

*Dr. James I. Good in his History of the Reformed Church in the United States published 
in 1911, has a chapter on Revivals in the Reformed Church. He first refers to the pietistic 
movement, already described, in which Otterbein, Hendel, Wagner and others had a part. 
He refers to many great and beneficent revivals but his examples are chiefly taken from the 
period this side of 1827. He indicates at length the oppositions and misunderstandings in the 
Reformed Church in regard to revivals, the whole case being made to turn on the kind of a 
revival, as to whether it is quiet and orderly or attended with demonstrations. A distinction 
as to revivals certainly has to be made but the attempt to make the distinction often reveals 
more what the critic is than what the revival is. 



176 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


reproached their indolence, and his spiritual preaching their 
formal notions. 

An evidence that seems to be against the idea of Otter- 
bein’s vital relationship to the religious movement now tending 
more and more toward church character is the fact that Mr. 
Otterbein’s name appears in the lists of those present at the 
sessions of the Reformed synod in 1791, 1797, 1800, and 1806. 
Of the nature of his attendance in 1791, 1797, and 1800, we 
know little. In regard to his attendance in 1806, we know that 
his name ought not to be included. Not taking into account 
this instance, then, his attendance at the sessions of the synod 
in the last twenty-three years of his life would stand, present 
three times during the first ten years, and during the last 
thirteen years, or after the important United Brethren confer¬ 
ence of 1800, never present. It seems, however, that Mr. Otter- 
bein did sustain a double relation. As to which relation was 
the nominal one, only now and then rising to something like 
reality, and which relation was the virtual one, only now and 
then confronted by apparent contradiction, the entire chain of 
events hereafter described will indicate. 

After Mr. Otterbein became pastor of an independent 
congregation he could at no time, in a practical sense, be 
considered a full member of the synod; but the extent to which 
he continued his connection was, as an incident or two will 
show, a matter of offense to his opponents in the synod. At 
a comparatively early time, as a Mr. G. was returning from a 
session of the synod, he was met by one of his parishioners, a 
bitter enemy of revivals, when the following conversation 
passed: 

P. “Well, what have you done with Mr. O.?” 

G. “Oh, nothing—nothing at all.” 

P. “Nothing! Why did you not throw him over the 
fence?” 

G. “Ah! he was too heavy for us.” 

We now come to the expulsion of Mr. Geeting in 1804. 
Mr. Geeting had not been present at the synod since 1797. 
On motion of Rev. Christian L. Becker that he be expelled 
from the synod “without delay,” he was forthwith expelled. 


OTTERBEIN AND THE REFORMED CHURCH 177 


His offense was the same as Mr. Otterbein's—not greater, not 
different. Mr. Otterbein paid no respect to the action of the 
synod. At the session of the United Brethren conference in 
the fall of 1804, after his expulsion took place, Otterbein and 
Geeting were both absent on account of the prevailing “ great 
sickness and mortality.” In 1805 they were together at the 
conference, and subsequently their relations were close and 
unbroken. While their spheres of work were somewhat differ¬ 
ent, and while, in slight respects they may have differed in the 
character of their work, Mr. Otterbein’s approval was ever 
upon the zeal and labors of Mr. Geeting. 

The list of ministers present at the session of the synod 
of 1806 includes, without good reason, as already said, the 
name of Mr. Otterbein. Notwithstanding the synod that 
year met in Baltimore, Mr. Otterbein did not present himself 
at the session until requested to do so by a special committee. 
The account of this last visit to the synod, as given by Mr. Law¬ 
rence, is as follows. 

Bending under the weight of four-score years, and leaning 
upon a long staff, which he carried to support him, he went 
with the committee. When he arrived, an opportunity was 
given him to speak. He arose and addressed the synod in a 
most feeling manner, and strove to impress the minds of the 
ministers present with the importance of experimental re¬ 
ligion,—of the new birth, and the great necessity of preaching 
it to the people distinctly and plainly, as men who must give 
account to God. After he had taken his seat, Mr. Becker, who, 
about that time, assumed the pastoral charge of the German 
Reformed church in Baltimore, arose and opposed the views 
he had advanced, and answered him roughly. Mr. 0. heard 
him through with his accustomed meekness, and then, taking 
his cane and hat, he bid the preachers farewell, bowed, and 
retired never to return again.” His last words to the members 
of the synod were, “Goodby, brethren (Adieu, Brueder.) 

Following upon this scene on the floor of the synod, either 
in 1806 or 1807, we have the following occurrence and conversa¬ 
tion: In company with a Mr. Schwatkee, a member of his 
vestry, Mr. Otterbein was on a visit to Old Town. While in 
the Falls bridge they met Rev. Christian L. Becker, who after 
offering Mr. Otterbein some cold civilities, interrogated him 


178 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


thus: “Will you persist in your conduct, holding schwaermer 
versammlungen (fanatical meetings)? Mr. Otterbein meekly 
replied that he would continue his course. Becker continued, 
“The synod will certainly exclude you. I am determined to 
have you expelled. We cannot suffer such wicked fanaticism 
among us.” (Wir koennen solche heilose Schwaermerei unter 
uns nicht dulden.) Otterbein replied, “The synod is too late; 
the exclusion is past.” As they separated Otterbein exclaimed, 
“0 welche Blindheit ,—Oh what blindness!” 

The testimony most relied on to show that Mr. Otterbein’s 
full connection with the German Reformed Church was un¬ 
broken from first to last is that of Thomas Winters, a minister 
that was at first associated with Mr. Otterbein and his co¬ 
laborers, and that afterward became a regular minister in the 
Reformed Church. Let us notice his testimony. The follow¬ 
ing is an extract from his testimony as taken down a few years 
before his death, which occurred in 1863, by Rev. P. C. Prugh, 
“at the special request of Doctor Harbaugh.” “During this 
time [between 1809 and 1814] I was strongly urged to go into 
the organization of a new church, called the United Brethren 
in Christ, which was then in process of formation, and which 
did actually come into being; but like the great Otterbein 
whom I greatly loved and esteemed for his piety and talents, 

I preferred rather to live and die in the Reformed Church.” 

If Mr. Winters’ relations before 1814 were the same as 
those of Mr. Otterbein, it will be of interest to find out what - 
those relations were. In 1799 Mr. Winters received from Mr. 
Otterbein and his co-laborers license to preach. He continued 
to preach in Maryland on the authority of this license until 
1809, when he became settled in Ohio. Here his zeal and 
diligence continued undiminished. When the first United 
Brethren conference was formed in Ohio, in 1810, he was a 
member of it, and was present at the first session. In 1812 he 
was one of those that “willingly gave themselves to travel.” 
The same year he and Daniel Troyer were sent as fraternal 
delegates to the Methodist conference at Chillicothe. In 1813 
he and Henry Evinger reported that they had formed a “circuit 
consisting of forty-seven appointments, and that many other 


OTTERBEIN AND THE REFORMED CHURCH 179 


places requested preaching/' He received as salary one 
hundred and thirty-two dollars and six cents, besides a small 
dividend from two other sources, with a slight “advance" 
payment. During the first part of the next year he and Mr. 
Evinger again labored on “Twin Circuit," and during this 
time made considerable progress in collecting a volume of 
German hymns for the use of the United Brethren. In the 
spring of 1814 he made a visit to Maryland, and was present 
at the session of the old United Brethren conference, which met 
May 24, of that year. It was at this session that the Baltimore 
congregation made its report of the death of Mr. Otterbein, 
and at which his first regular successor was appointed. After 
Mr. Winters had completed his visit in Maryland he returned 
to Ohio, and was present at the conference that met August 23, 
at Andrew Zeller’s, near Germantown. From some cause he 
had determined to seek admission to the ministry of the 
German Reformed Church. The minutes of the conference 
of 1814 say, “Brother Winters declared that he, from this 
time forth, would not belong to the brotherhood,* and was 
dismissed (entlasseri ).’’ To most persons it will be sufficiently 
apparent that in 1814 Mr. Winters made a radical change 
from the course that he had hitherto pursued. 

Mr. John Dietrich Aurandt, who received license in the 
same way as did Mr. Winters, and about the same time, is 
likewise often referred to as indicating by his course the rela¬ 
tions of Mr. Otterbein. What, then, was his course? In 1800 
he was present at the conference of the United Brethren. In 
1801 he sought “examination and ordination of the Reformed 
synod." Hereupon the synod, among other directions, directed 
that he should abstain from “attending on the so-called ‘big 
meetings.’ ’’ He seemed reluctant to make the separation 
required of him, and was again present at the conference of 
1802. On the authority of his license, he continued to preach 
for some time; but in 1806 he again made application to the 
synod, and received license for one year. But while the synod 
was dissatisfied with him on account of his connection with 

*Up to this time and even later the word brotherhood (Bruederschaft) for the denomina¬ 
tion was in common use. 



180 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the United Brethren, the conference of the United Brethren 
was no less dissatisfied with him because of his course before 
the synod. The minutes of the conference of 1803, which were 
signed by Mr. Otterbein, contain the following: “Complaints 
were presented against D. Aurandt. Brothers Snyder and 
Neidig were appointed to investigate the matter.” The con¬ 
ference of 1807 declared that “for the present” it would 
“have nothing to do v/ith Dietrich Aurandt.” It was during 
this same period that the conference resolved to have nothing 
to do with J. G. Pfrimmer, whose relations to the German 
Reformed Church were similar to those of Mr. Aurandt, though 
Mr. Pfrimmer “again received permission to preach” from the 
conference of 1805. 

From these facts it is apparent that even at this early 
day the double relation that before 1789 or 1800 was entered 
into on the one side and connived at on the other came to be 
looked upon as in itself incompatible. If Mr. Otterbein and 
those that had stood with him in the Reformed Church were 
unfaithful to the true mission and demands of the church, 
they should be held responsible. If the Reformed Church, as 
represented by its synod, had been unfaithful to the mission 
of the church and the call of the hour, it should bear its re¬ 
sponsibility. Whatever might be the decision on this point, 
practical connection with both sides was now out of the ques¬ 
tion.* The proceedings of the synod indicate more of a 
knowledge of the “big meetings” than of the conference of the 
United Brethren; and these meetings were therefore made to 
mark the antagonism. The moment was reached when neither 
party could afford to have its acts discredited or negatived by 
the course of the other party. If any blame must be charged, 
it must fall principally to an earlier period. There might be 
vacillation on the part of a few, as in the case of J. G. Pfrimmer 
and D. Aurandt, one of whom went one way and one the other; 
or there might be an after-change from one side to the other, 
as in the case of Thomas Winters; but none that had been 

*In reference to the expulsion of Geeting, Doctor Dubbs speaks aB follows: “We can 
hardly resist the conclusion that Geeting expected this action, and did not desire it to be 
different.” 



OTTERBEIN AND THE REFORMED CHURCH 181 


longer or more profoundly in the religious movement were 
ignorant of their true position and proper alliances. It is not 
meant, however, that Mr. Otterbein and his associates became 
freed from temporary misgivings, that they ceased to turn 
with burdened hearts toward the churches of their fathers, 
or that they became indifferent to the way in which they, in 
their reputation and influence for good, were made to suffer. 

On the statement to the effect that Otterbein never in¬ 
tended to found a new “sect,” it is unnecessary to dwell. All 
this is readily admitted, and much more. But what, in the 
earlier part of his ministry, he did not intend as to the raising 
up of a new denomination, Providence brought about, and 
coming to recognize a higher purpose than his own, he did not 
place himself athwart it. It is also granted that in consequence 
of some facts in Mr. Otterbein’s connections being more or 
less hidden from general view, statements have been by some 
innocently made as to Mr. Otterbein’s course that are never¬ 
theless far from tenable. 

Dr. Benjamin Kurtz has left the following testimony as 
to the light in which Mr. Otterbein was viewed by the public: 
“During the latter part of his life he was no longer regarded 
as a minister of the German Reformed Church.” Dr. Benja¬ 
min Kurtz went to Baltimore in 1815, as the assistant of his 
uncle, Dr. J. D. Kurtz, who as the pastor of the Lutheran 
church in Baltimore was twenty-seven years a most intimate 
friend of Mr. Otterbein. 

Mr. Asbury’s testimony in reference to the German 
fathers, and especially Otterbein, given in 1812, while Mr. 
Otterbein was yet living, was as follows: “Pre-eminent among 
these is William Otterbein, who assisted in the ordination 
which set apart your speaker to the superintendency of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. William Otterbein was regularly 
ordained to the ministry in the German Presbyterian Church. 
He is one of the best scholars and greatest divines in America. 
Why, then, is he not where he began? He was irregular. 
Alas, for us! the zealous are necessarily so to those whose cry is 
Tut me into the priest’s office, that I may eat a morsel of 
bread.’ Osterwald has observed, ‘Hell is paved with the 


182 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


skulls of unfaithful ministers/ Such was not Boehm, such is 
not Otterbein; and now his sun of life is setting in brightness. 
Behold the saint of God leaning upon his staff, waiting for the 
chariots of Israel!” 

A statement of Doctor Zacharias, pastor at Frederick, 
Maryland, from 1835 to 1873, gives to Mr. Otterbein, 
from a candid Reformed standpoint, his proper position. 
After saying that “he became the founder of the sect of the 
United Brethren,” he added, “but he was never separated 
formally from the German Reformed Church.” In some 
historical sermons preached by Doctor Harbaugh, this latter 
statement is identically repeated. But while it is allowed 
that he was never formally separated from the Reformed 
Church, the reader will see in the account of his last years, 
as given in the following pages, in what direction his real 
relations lay. 

It has been far from pleasant to the writer to dwell so 
long on these disputed points, but as assertions contrary to 
what he fully believes to be the facts as to Mr. Otterbein’s 
relations are continually being made, on what seems to him 
little other or better ground than the retention of Mr. Otter¬ 
bein’s name on the roll of the synod, he has deemed it necessary 
to show the fallaciousness of the assumptions put forward. 
Nothing begets worse feelings than an “it is” met by an “it is 
not.” If the writer has erred, in any respect, he trusts that 
in the facts here given his readers will find such materials as 
will assist them in forming for themselves a correct opinion. 
The positive evidence as to Mr. Otterbein’s relations lies not 
so much in what any one has said of him, as in the whole tenor 
of his later course. 


CHAPTER XIII. 

OTTERBEIN AND THE UNITED BRETHREN. 

Conference of 1800—The Election of Bishops—Minutes of 1801—Minutes 
of 1802—Minutes of 1803—Minutes of 1804—Minutes of 1805.— 
Otterbein’s Preaching at Conference and Big Meetings—Otter- 
bein Sick—Partial Recovery. 

r HE present chapter, as compared with the corre¬ 
sponding chapter in the Life of Otterbein, will be 
found to be considerably modified and enlarged in 
order to show more fully the transition of the religious 
movement into church character. 

The first regular annual conference of the United Brethren 
met in 1800. The minutes of the successive sessions give but 
a partial view of the business transacted, but the impression 
that they make of the spirit of the early preachers and the 
trend of events justifies the including here of the minutes 
entire of a number of the sessions of the conference. The 
minutes seem to have been taken down on loose sheets by 
George Adam Geeting and to have been copied by him into 
the record-book, still preserved, a short time before his death 
in 1812. 

The following are the minutes of the session of 1800, 
together with the words introductory to the entire series of 
minutes: 

PROTOCOL 
of the 

UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 
(Von Die Vereinigte Bruederschaft zu Christo) 
“Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.” 
Do it, Lord Jesus, for the sake of thy suffering and death. 
Amen. 

This book was obtained the 18th [of May,] 1812. 

Here now follows what the United Bretherhood in Christ 
Jesus from the year 1800—the United till 1800—have done in 
their annual conferences, how the preachers and church mem¬ 
bers should conduct themselves. 


183 


184 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


September 25,1800, the following preachers assembled at 
the house of Frederick Kemp 1 2 3 in Frederick County. Maryland: 
IFilliam Otterbein, Martin Boehm, John Hershey, Abraham 
Troxel, Christian Crum, Henry Caum, George Pfrimmer, 
Henry Boehm, Christian Newcomer, Dietrich Aurandt, Jacob 
Geisinger, George Adam Geeting, Adam Lehman .2 

Each person spoke first of his own experience, and then 
declared anew his intention with all zeal, through the help of 
God, to preach untrammeled by sect to the honor of God and 
[the good] of men. 

1. Resolved that two preachers shall go to Smoke’s and 
investigate whether D. Aurandt should baptize and administer 
the Lord’s supper. 

2. Resolved that yearly a day shall be appointed when 
the unsectarian ( 1 unparteiische) 3 preachers shall assemble and 
counsel how they may conduct their office more and more 
according to the will of God, and according to the mind of 
God, that the church of God may be built up, and sinners 
converted, so that God in Christ may be honored. 

3. The meeting was opened with prayer, then a chapter 
read, a short discourse delivered by Brother Otterbein, and 
then again closed with prayer. 

To this record of the proceedings of the conference, New¬ 
comer’s account may be subjoined: “25. This morning we 
set out early; came to Brother Peter Kemp’s where the confer¬ 
ence was to be held; found Father Otterbein, Boehm, and twelve 
other preachers there. The conference was opened with singing 
and prayer by Otterbein and Boehm. The former gave a 
powerful exhortation. Then were all the brethren present 
separately examined respecting their progress in the divine 
life, and their success and industry in preaching. 26. This 
forenoon Father Otterbein preached from Amos iv. 12. Boehm 
spoke after him. After transacting some other business the 
conference closed with prayer.” 

1. All other references give Peter Kemp’s as the place of meeting. Peter Kemp was 
the son of Frederick Kemp. After the death of his mother he made a home for his father in 
the family homestead which came to him by his father’s will at his father’s death in 1804. So 
one and the same place is meant. 

2. And probably also Jacob Baulus. To the list of members present Spayth adds the 
following list of members absent: John Neidig, Frederick Schaffer, Martin Crider, Christo¬ 
pher Grosh, Abraham Mayer, G. Fortenbaugh, David Snyder, Adam Riegel, A. Hershey, 
Christian Hershey, of Pennsylvania; John Ernst, M. Thomas, of Maryland; Simon Herre, 
Daniel Strickler, John Senseny, Abraham Hiestand, I. Niswander, of Virginia. 

3. For the different names given the United Brethren see page 265. 



OTTERBEIN AND THE UNITED BRETHREN 185 


Section 2 of the minutes indicates a deliberate determina¬ 
tion to enter upon a wide and far-reaching work to which the 
“unsectarian,” untrammeled by any sect or church would 
devote themselves. At this time the name the “unsectarian” 
(unparteiischen), had already become a party name. 

It will be noticed that there is no reference to the election 
of bishops. To the secretary, George A. Geeting, it probably 
seemed an unnecessary work formally to elect to the office of 
bishop persons that were already, by the calling of Providence, 
virtual bishops. But the evidence from other sources that the 
conference did not neglect this matter of form is abundantly 
sufficient. The first General Conference, which met only fifteen 
years later, some of the members having been members of the 
conference of 1800, said in regard to those that comprised the 
conference of 1800: “They there united themselves into a 
society which bears the name of the United Brethren in Christ, 
and elected William Otterbein and Martin Boehm as superin¬ 
tendents, or bishops.” Henry Boehm, who was present, and 
was recognized as a member of the conference, says, “They 
elected bishops for the first time. William Otterbein and 
Martin Boehm, my father, were unanimously chosen.”* In 
the eighteenth section of the minutes of 1802, as hereafter 
quoted, Otterbein and Boehm are called superintendents. 
The word used is eldesten; but that office, and not order, is 
meant no one will question. The United Brethren have al¬ 
ways used the terms bishop and superintendent as equivalents. 
In 1805 Otterbein and Boehm were reelected bishops! their 
election in 1804 having been prevented by the general sickness 
of that year, and the small attendance at the conference in 
consequence. After Otterbein and Boehm became, on account 

♦“Reminiscences.” pp. 55 and 56. Henry Boehm, known as the centenarian of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, was in 1800 keeping a regular diary, and his statements relating 
to the events of 1800 are based upon that diary. After he had been at the United Breth¬ 
ren conference, and at the Methodist general conference of 1800, and had witnessed the 
settled order and discipline of the Methodists, he made up his mind, as he says, ‘to enter 
their itinerant ministry.” 

tNewcomer’s statement is“Father Otterbein and Martin Boehm were elected presidents.” 
He uses the term "president” for himself in connection with the session of the Miami Con¬ 
ference, 1813 and 1814. 



186 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


of old age, incapable of attending the sessions of conference, 
there came to be much confusion and many differences. There 
was need of an active bishop, and in this character Newcomer, 
in 1813, was elected. The death of Martin Boehm and of 
George A. Geeting during the previous year made this election 
necessary. To show that Newcomer's election meant, not 
the election of the first bishop by the United Brethren, but the 
election of an active bishop, Newcomer's own words are 
sufficient. He wrote, “The brethren elected a superintendent, 
or bishop, who is to have charge of the whole society; if pos¬ 
sible, to attend all of the annual conferences of the United 
Brethren in Christ." 

The home of Peter Kemp, where the conference met, was 
a regular preaching place and also a home where Otterbein, 
Newcomer and others of the preachers were often entertained. 
The place is two and a fourth miles west of Frederick, Mary¬ 
land. The house of Peter Kemp was a large stone house and 
is still a substantial and comfortable dwelling. While Mr. 
Kemp was likely engaged to some extent in preaching at this 
time, he was not a regularly recognized preacher until the 
following year. 

The following are the minutes for 1801: 

September 23, 1801, we again assembled at Peter Kemp's 
in order to counsel together and instruct one another how we 
might be pleasing to God and useful to our fellowmen. 

The following preachers were present: William Otterbein, 
Martin Boehm, Christian Newcomer, Daniel Strickler, George 
Adam Geeting, Peter Senseny, John Neidig, David Long, Ab¬ 
raham Mayer, Frederick Schaffer, Jacob Geisinger, John 
Hershey, Thomas Winters, Ludwig Duckwald, David Snyder, 
Peter Kemp, Matthias Kessler, Christian Crum, Abraham 
Hershey, Michael Thomas. 

1. After prayer, Otterbein gave a discourse. He said 
that salvation depends on Christ alone and his mercy, and that 
whoever here becomes free from sin and a party spirit has God 
to thank. Thus he declared his mind, and then each of the 
preachers spoke of his experience, and then was the following 
resolved. 

2. A letter was read from Rev. Pfrimmer, and it was 
resolved to make no answer, because that seemed right to 
every one. 


OTTERBEIN AND THE UNITED BRETHREN 187 


3. A letter was received from Aurandt at Smoke's, and 
resolved to grant his desire and to notify him through Christian 
Newcomer. 

4. Today's session closed with song and a hearty prayer 
that God would bless us and make us true and faithful laborers 
in his vineyard. Oh, that the Lord would send upon us all 
his Holy Spirit, that we might proclaim with power the word 
of God. Amen. 

1. The 24th of September, 1801, we again assembled 
in God's name in Peter Kemp's house; and first a chapter 
of the Revelation of John was read, namely, the fourteenth 
chapter. Then followed singing and hearty prayer that each 
one might be willing to preach the gospel and that he also be 
careful, and that he also so walk as he preaches to others. 

2. The preachers were examined as to whether they are 
willing according to their ability to labor in the work of the 
Lord, through the grace of the Lord. 

3. It was asked who are willing to take charge of a circuit 
and preach at the appointed places. Then the following 
preachers offered themselves: Christian Newcomer, David 
Snyder, Michael Thomas, Abraham Hershey, Daniel Strickler, 
Abraham Mayer, Frederick Schaffer, David Long, John 
Neidig, Peter Kemp. 

4. Resolved that each preacher, after the sermon, shall 
hold conversation with those that would be converted, be 
they who they may, if they are determined from the heart to 
give themselves to God. 

5. Resolved that the preachers shall be brief and avoid 
unnecessary words in preaching and in prayer; but if the 
Spirit of God impels, it is their duty to follow as God directs. 
0 God, give us wisdom and understanding to do all things 
according to thy will. Amen. 

1. At nine o'clock we again came together. We began 
the session again with singing and hearty prayer that God 
would bless us with wisdom and understanding and with hearty 
love to God and one another. Amen. 

2. Resolved that our preachers' meeting [conference] 
next year shall be October 5, 1803, at David Snyder's, and 
whoever of the preachers cannot come shall write to the 
conference. 

3. Resolved that the last Sunday in August a great 
meeting shall be held at Sleepy Creek.* 


‘Sections. 1,2, and 3, belong to the minutes of 1802 for October 8. 



188 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


4. Our present meeting was now closed; and indeed 
with a hearty prayer, which may the Lord out of grace grant 
for Jesus’ sake. Amen. 

Martin Boehm. 

William Otterbein. 

George Adam Geeting. 

Of this session Newcomer writes: “Nineteen preachers 
were present. At night we had a most excellent meeting at 
H. R.’s; the Lord visited us in mercy. The mother of the 
family and several others were converted to God. 24. This 
day many topics were discussed in the session of the confer¬ 
ence; a general unanimity of love prevailed among the brethren. 
25. Father Otterbein preached this day with uncommon 
perspicuity and power; his text was in the Epistle of Jude. 
The force with which he pointed out the greatness, the im¬ 
portance, and responsibility of the ministerial office will never 
be forgotten by me. The impression made on my poor heart, 
will, I trust, abide with me as long as life shall last.” 

The following is a copy of a license to preach granted at 
the time of this conference, though no account of the same is 
given in the minutes: 

We, the undersigned, hereby witness that David Snyder, 
in West Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsyl¬ 
vania, stands among us as a preacher of the gospel, by our 
consent. Given by us at Peter Kemp’s, Frederick County, 
Maryland, September, 24, 1801. 

W. Otterbein, V.D.M. 
Martin Boehm. 

The conference met in 1802 at the home of John Cronise 
near the home of Peter Kemp. The following are the minutes 
of this conference. 

At Cronise’s, in Frederick County, [Maryland], we the fol¬ 
lowing preachers, came together to hold counsel: William Ot¬ 
terbein, Martin Boehm, Christian Newcomer, John Hershey, 
Christopher Grosh, Abraham Troxel, Henry Crum, Michael 
Thomas, Dietrich Aurandt, David Snyder, Peter Kemp, Matthi¬ 
as Kessler, George Adam Geeting. 

1. We began our meeting with singing, then with right 
hearty prayer to God that the kingdom of God might come 


OTTERBEIN AND THE UNITED BRETHREN 189 


and the will of God be done on earth as in heaven. May God 
will to send us preachers the grace of love to love God and 
men. 

2. Each of the preachers spoke of his condition, how 
it is with him in his preaching and how his purpose is further 
to do in his office, to call heartily upon God for his help, and 
that ever he might through humility give to another higher 
esteem than to himself. May God give to us preachers grace 
that we may become very humble to the honor of God and 
the good of men. 

3. Resolved that Valentine Flugle have a certificate from 
us that he is allowed to exhort and persuade the people that 
they be converted. The Lord give him his blessing. 

4. Resolved that we write to Pfrimmer that for the 
present we will have nothing to do with him. 

5. At the close of the session Ludwig Duckwald and 
William Ambrose from Sleepy Creek, Virginia, arrived. 

6. October 7 the sermon began, which was preached by 
Otterbein and Boehm, on Hebrews xiii. 17, with great blessing. 
To God be all the glory for this. May the sermon never be 
forgotten by us preachers and all the hearers. 

7. The first thing that was taken up was that John Miller 
with our approval shall exhort the people to incite them to good 
works as much as he can through God's grace. 

8. It appeared that in the matter of the recording of 
names, twelve votes were in favor and nine against, i It 
is therefore with consent laid over for the present. 

9. The preachers shall establish prayer-meetings where 
they preach, if it is possible. 

10. . It is permitted to Ludwig Duckwald to baptize and 
to administer the outer signs of the Lord's supper according 
to God's Word. 

11. On the 26th of September there was a sermon preached 
by our Brother Otterbein, from the fourteenth verse to the 
end of the Epistle of Jude, and that with great blessing. In 
the afternoon our consultation was resumed.* 

12. A proposal was made relating to the collecting of a 
sum of money for poor preachers. Nothing, however, was 
done. 


r Of twelve votes nine were against, is doubtless the right statement. 

♦Section II must belong to the minutes of 1801, the correct date being September 25. 
The occasion of some of the confusion in the minutes of 1801 and 1802 is found in the temporary 
loss of a part of the minutes, but more in the advanced age of Mr. Geeting, and the interval of 
twelve years from the time of the taking of the first minutes to the time when the minutes 
were recorded. 



190 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


13. Resolved that if a preacher does anything wrong or 
scandalous, the nearest preacher shall go and talk with him 
alone. If he refuse to hear or heed, said preacher shall take 
with him one or two more preachers. If he refuse to hear 
them, he shall be silent till the next conference. 

14. Resolved that George Adam Geeting in the spring 
and fall shall visit the societies on Frederick Circuit. 

15. Resolved that Christian Newcomer visit Cumberland 
Circuit twice yearly. 

16. Resolved that Martin Boehm twice yearly visit the 
circuits in Pennsylvania beyond the Susquehanna, to ascertain 
the condition of things in their societies. 

17. Resolved that Jacob Baulus and Valentine Baulus 
shall make house visits in Middletown and Fredericktown and 
their vicinity. 

18. Further, it is laid down as a rule [v st gesetzt] that 
when one of our superintendents [or elders, eltesten] dies, namely 
Otterbein or Martin Boehm, who now are appointed to the 
place [gesetzt sind\ , then shall another always be chosen in 
his stead. This is the wish of both, and all of the preachers 
present unanimously consent and are agreed that it be thus.f 

Now for this time is the session closed in God's name. 

Martin Boehm. 

William Otterbein. 

This yet here to mention: Peter Senseny, Ludwig Duck- 
wald, John Neidig, are authorized to baptize and administer 
the Lord's Supper, with all belonging thereto. 

Newcomer records the following regarding this conference 
session: "Today our conference commenced at John Cronise's 
with singing and prayer by Father Boehm. Otterbein ad¬ 
dressed the brethren in his usual manner. The preachers 
present were all examined separately, and many other things 
transacted. At night we had meeting here and at Kemp’s. 
7. This day Otterbein preached on Hebrews xiii. 17, with 
great energy and power. Boehm followed him. Their dis¬ 
courses were particularly addressed to the preachers. * * * * 

tThe following account from a later source purports to give more definitely the attending 
circumstances: “He (Otterbein) at this conference spoke as follows: ‘Dear brethren, I am 
far advanced in years. My strength is failing. I do not expect to be with you long. My 
work will soon be finished and should I be called away by death, choose one from your num¬ 
ber to take the place I now occupy. Be faithful to God. He is with us and he will be with 
you.’ ” The account proceeds. “Martin Boehm rose and uttered the same sentiments and 
made the same request.” 



OTTERBEIN AND THE UNITED BRETHREN 191 


8. This morning the conference met again; in the afternoon 
Father Otterbein closed the same by another address. He 
exhorted us particularly to be careful and preach no other 
doctrine than what is plainly laid down in the Bible/' 

The following are the minutes of the conference of 1803: 

1. October 5, 1803. We assembled at David Snyder's, 
in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The preachers present 
were the following: William Otterbein, Martin Boehm, 
Christian Newcomer, David Snyder, John Hershey, Peter 
Kemp, Abraham Mayer, Christopher Grosh, Christian Crum, 
Valentine Flugle, John Winters, Frederick Schaffer, George 
Adam Geeting, George Benedum. 

We began the session with the reading of the second 
chapter of First Timothy, and then with singing some verses 
of a hymn, and with prayer. Thou, dear Saviour, bless our 
coming together to the honor of thy name and to the edifica¬ 
tion of us all. 0 Lord, answer us for Jesus’ sake. Amen. 

2. Each one of the preachers spoke as to his condition, 
how it stood with him; and of his renewed determination in 
upright love with all, with earnest determination in upright¬ 
ness toward one another and bound together in love, to walk 
in the ways of God; to preach the gospel through the power 
of Jesus. Amen. 

3. Resolved that Daniel Strickler and Christian Crum 
shall call the preachers in Virginia together and with one 
another determine how they should preach and rightly arrange 
their plan. The Lord give them wisdom and power from above. 

4. October 6, at two o'clock, our session again began 
with the reading of a chapter and with prayer. In the forenoon 
there was preaching by Otterbein and Boehm. 

5. The work in Maryland was considered. It was left 
to the preachers in Maryland themselves to arrange. 

6. Resolved that Martin Boehm and Grosh place the 
preachers in order in Pennsylvania as may tend most to the 
honor of God, and the benefit of the hearers and the bettering 
of the church of God. 

7. Resolved that David Snyder and Abraham Mayer 
and Benedum shall make their own arrangement, how they 
shall serve their preaching places, as may be best for the 
kingdom of God. May the Lord help them. Amen. 

8. It is ordered that Christian Newcomer and Henry 
Crum go to Christian Berger's 1 and preach the gospel in his 


Un western Pennsylvania. 



192 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


part of the country, wherever they can find an entrance, to the 
praise of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

9. Resolved that the preachers named shall give to 
Christian Berger authority to baptize, but nothing more 
at this time. 

10. October 7, we began our session again with the 
reading of the fourteenth psalm, and very hearty prayer. 

11. Concerning Brother Flugle, it was resolved that 
Brother Hershey visit his place to administer the Lord's supper. 

12. There being a complaint against D. Aurandt, resolved 
that Brother Snyder and Brother Neidig, should go thither 
and make an investigation. 

13. Resolved that our next conference again be held at 
David Snyder’s, if the Lord will, the first Wednesday in 
October, 1804, and a great meeting Saturday and Sunday 
following. The Lord grant it his blessing. 

At length it was resolved that concerning the recording 
of the people’s names every one has the freedom to do according 
to his understanding, and that they love one another as 
brethren. Further, it was resolved that the preacher after 
the sermon should converse with awakened souls as in the 
circumstances it might seem proper. 

Wm. Otterbein. 

Martin Boehm. 

George Adam Geeting. 

A number of interesting points present themselves in 
connection with this session of the conference. Cumberland 
County in which the conference was held, while not new 
territory for the United Brethren, was not the earliest occupied. 
The earlier centers in Pennsylvania were Lancaster County 
and adjoining counties, east of the Susquehanna, and York 
County and adjoining counties west of the Susquehanna. 
Points in Cumberland County were on the way from parts of 
the districts earlier occupied to Maryland and Virginia, and 
thus preachers on their journeys began the occupation of the 
field. Doctor Eberly claimed that the earliest preaching 
place was at John Shopp’s, near Shiremanstown, Anna Hershey 
whom he married in 1787, through her family, being con¬ 
nected with the United Brethren. Two of the ministers 
present at the conference, Abraham Mayer and David Snyder 
were residents of West Pennsboro Township in Cumberland 
County, where the conference met. The former began to 


OTTERBEIN AND THE UNITED BRETHREN 193 


preach in 1796 and must have been associated with the United 
Brethren much earlier. He was a Mennonite and continued 
to wear the Mennonite costume. He was a laborious and 
efficient preacher up to the time of his death in 1826. His 
house was a preaching-place and a home for ministers. Mr. 
Snyder’s license to preach was granted in 1801. He was 
probably of Mennonite connections. Newcomer first visited 
his home in 1797. He, as was Mr. Mayer, was the owner of 
a valuable farm. On his own land he erected at his own 
expense a substantial church, possibly as early as 1810. It 
was in his home, nine miles southwest of Carlisle that the 
conference of 1803 met. He gave a large amount of his time to 
preaching. He and his noble wife were among the first large 
givers to the work of the church. He died in 1819. 

It will be noticed that the matter of enrolling the members, 
which could not command in its favor a majority of the votes 
at the preceding session, was now left to the judgment of each 
preacher. Nevertheless it was many years before the record¬ 
ing of the names of members became general. 

It will be noticed further, on how much more comprehen¬ 
sive and settled plans, the division of the field and the work of 
the preachers were arranged. Virginia, Maryland and eastern 
and western Pennsylvania were provided for. 

Following the conference there was a sacramental meeting 
at which Otterbein and Boehm preached. 

The following is the brief record of the conference of 1804: 

October 3, 1804, the conference met at David Snyder’s. 
Few preachers came, however, on account of the prevailing 
sickness and mortality. Present, Christian Newcomer, Martin 
Boehm, Frederick Schaffer, David Snyder, Matthias Bortsfield. 

They counseled together and resolved, the Lord willing, 
that the next conference be held near Middletown, Maryland, 
on Wednesday before Whitsunday, 1805. 

The following are the minutes of the session of 1805, the 
last that Mr. Otterbein was permitted to attend: 

1. May 29, 1805, we, the following preachers, assembled 
at the house of Christian Newcomer. Both our [superin- 

1 The conference, according to appointment and the statement in Newcomer's Journal, met 
at Jacob Baulus’s, near Middletown, Maryland. 



194 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


tendents] were present—Otterbein and Boehm. John Her- 
shey, George Adam Geeting, Daniel Strickler, Frederick 
Schaffer, Peter Kemp, Lorenz Eberhart, George Benedum, 
David Snyder, Christian Crum, Frederick Duckwald, William 
Ambrose, Jacob Baulus, Jacob Geisinger, Christian Berger, 
Abraham Mayer, Christian Newcomer. 

2. We began the session with hearty prayer. Otterbein 
gave a short address. May the Lord Jesus grant his blessing 
to the same. Amen. 

3. The assembled preachers resolved through the grace 
of Jesus Christ to urge forward the work of God with more 
earnestness than ever before. 0 dear Saviour, help us, poor 
and unworthy, for the sake of thy suffering and death. Amen. 

4. According to the confession of the preachers the grace 
of God was with them and their work. May the Lord bless 
them in their office. The Lord make each one very faithful. 

5. Pfrimmer received permission to preach among us. 

6. The following preachers arrived: Ludwig Duck¬ 
wald, Daniel Troyer, Jacob Dehof. 

7. At eight o’clock, May 30, we again assembled. A 
portion from God’s Word was read, followed by prayer to 
God in the name of Jesus, and thus the session began. 

8. With the advice and consent of the preachers New¬ 
comer determined to preach the whole year in Maryland 
and a part of Pennsylvania; and Christian Crum in Virginia. 
Resolved that each receive forty pounds yearly.! 

9. Resolved that George Adam Geeting shall be present 
at the usual great meetings in Maryland and on this side of 
the Susquehanna in Pennsylvania. 

10. It was decided by the preachers’ meeting that Geeting 
should not take up his residence at Hagerstown, but that 
Hagerstown should be served by our preachers. 

11. The preachers who preach where they desire, according 
to their inclination, shall have no compensation. When, 
however, they receive money, they shall bring the same to the 
conference, to be given to the regular preachers. 

12. It is allowed in our preachers’ meeting that Frederick 
Duckwald, of Sleepy Creek, and Christian Berger, of West¬ 
moreland, baptize, administer the Lord’s supper, and solemnize 
marriage. 

13. The conference will be held next year at Lorenz 
Eberhart’s, the Tuesday before Whitsunday, 1806, and that 
there on the Saturday following, a great meeting shall begin. 
May the Lord be with us. 


1 A pound in State currency was $2.67. 



OTTERBEIN AND THE UNITED BRETHREN 195 


14. With this the session was brought to a close after the 
reading of a chapter and an exhortation that we should live 
to the honor of God. William Otterbein. 

Martin Boehm. 

The home of Jacob Baulus, near Middletown, where the 
conference met, was one of the early preaching places for the 
United Brethren. In the neighborhood the United Brethren 
had a church building said to have been built in 1801. This 
is said to have been succeeded a few years later by another 
church building occupied by the Methodists and United 
Brethren in common. In the Journal of Bishop Roberts of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church for the year 1804, it is said that 
on Frederick Circuit which he served that year “the followers 
of Otterbein were very numerous” and that “at a place called 
Middletown he preached several times in their meeting-house.” 
But even with a meeting-house open to them the members of 
the conference may have met in a large room in the house 
of Jacob Baulus, such as was provided in many private houses 
for religious meetings. Jacob Baulus began to preach in 
1795 and preached extensively about his home in Maryland, 
but his largest service was given in building up the work of 
Christ's kingdom in northern Ohio. 

The reference to Geeting not taking up his residence in 
Hagerstown is explained by the fact that in 1805 the United 
Brethren had provided for themselves a meeting-house in 
Hagerstown and that regular preaching should be provided. 
But the conference did not endorse at this time, and in the 
circumstances existing, a settled pastorate. 

The following note from Newcomer's Journal in regard to 
the session of 1805, with its bearing on the position of Otter¬ 
bein and Boehm as bishops, has already received attention: 
“Today our Annual Conference commenced at Bro. Jacob 
Baulus'; twenty-one preachers were present. Father Otter¬ 
bein and Martin Boehm were elected presidents. The charac¬ 
ter of all the preachers present was examined, and some other 
business transacted.” 

The proceedings of the conferences subsequent to the ses¬ 
sion of 1805 will be reserved for consideration in connection 


196 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


with Part Second of this history. Let us now return and 
gather as best we may some items lying nearer Mr. Otter- 
bein's personal position and more immediate labors. Here we 
are again compelled to fall back on Newcomer's Journal; and 
to a considerable extent we shall be led over the ground already 
outlined. But we are approaching so close to the end of his 
laborious career, that everything that lies within our reach 
is to be sought and treasured. Mr. Newcomer's allusions to 
Mr. Otterbein do honor at the same time to the qualities of 
his own mind and heart, and give a noble reflection to the 
closing days of a life grandly devoted to the work of saving 
the lost. These allusions will be mainly found in connection 
with accounts of great meetings and conferences. 

The Sabbath following the conference of 1800 Mr. Otter¬ 
bein was present at a great meeting. Mr. Newcomer makes 
this note: "Father Otterbein preached from Revelation 
iii. 7-12: 'And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia 
write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he 
that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man 
shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy 
works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no 
man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept 
my word, and hast not denied my name.' He spoke with 
astonishing clearness and perspicuity, and appeared to be 
inspired with the gift of interpretation." 

Mr. Newcomer made the following note in reference to 
the great meeting at Antietam for 1801: "May 24. Father 
Otterbein preached this forenoon with such power and grace 
that almost every soul on the ground seemed to be pierced to 
the heart. We had a large congregation, and the attention 
of every soul was riveted to the spot. * * * 25. Today we 
had truly a day of grace and of the outpouring of the Holy 
Spirit—a Pentecost as in days of old." 

In 1802 Otterbein was present at the great meeting at 
the Antietam. Newcomer says: "June 5. Today our meeting 
commenced. Father Otterbein preached the first sermon, 
from Mark x. 29-31. After preaching we had a small confer¬ 
ence with the preachers present." Newcomer, after referring 


OTTERBEIN AND THE UNITED BRETHREN 197 


further to the success of Otterbein's preaching, gives an account 
of an extended tour made by Otterbein and others through 
Virginia. Under date of June 12, Newcomer says: “This 
day a sacramental meeting commenced at Jacob Funkhouser's, 
in Shenandoah County. Otterbein, Strickler, and Crum were 
present. Otterbein delivered the first discourse; I followed, 
and Brother Strickler concluded. At night we had meeting 
at Christian Funkhouser's. We had a great time. Eight 
souls were happily converted, and many others were crying 
for mercy. I lodged at John Funkhouser's—Sunday, 13. A 
great congregation assembled today. Otterbein spoke first, 
from Daniel vii. 13 and 14. I cannot but always be astonished 
and lost in amazement at the power and energy with which this 
servant of God declares the counsel of his Master/' 

The following paragraph, for the year 1804, will give us a 
glance into the character and workings of Mr. Otterbein’s 
church in Baltimore. Geeting, Newcomer, and Peter Kemp, 
made one of their many visits to Baltimore, and the paragraph 
shows how they were engaged: “February 11. This evening 
we arrived at Father Otterbein's, in Baltimore. Several of 
the brethren were there awaiting us. I went home with Peter 
Hoffman—Sunday, 12. This forenoon Brother Geeting 
preached from Revelation xxi. 6 and 7, with great power. In 
the afternoon I preached from Acts xii. 11. At night we had a 
prayer-meeting at Smith's; had a blessed time, and stayed 
there for the night. 13. Today we visited several friends; 
also the Rev. Mr. Dashields of the Episcopal Church. At 
night we had meeting at Bender's. A great many people were 
assembled. 14. This day we again visited the members of 
the society in the city, also the Methodist Bishop Whatcoat, 
who happened to be here. At night Brother Kemp preached 
in the church. I gave an exhortation. * * * 15. This fore¬ 
noon I met a class—all sisters—at Mr. King's. At night 
another class met at Otterbein's—all brethren. 16. This 
afternoon I met another class—all sisters. At night I preached. 
* * * 17. This evening we had a meeting at Michael 
Grubb's. 18. I preached at Hoeflich's." The meetings not 
in the church were held in the houses of members. 


198 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


In December, 1805, Newcomer received intelligence that 
“Father Otterbein was very ill," and “that in all probability 
he could not recover from his illness." He hastened to his 
side. On the 17th of December he made the following entry: 
“This morning Otterbein was somewhat better. We held a 
long conversation together. Among other things, he said if 
we would only prove faithful to the work that was so auspicious¬ 
ly begun the Lord would certainly be with us, and continue 
unto us his blessings. Toward evening his pains increased. 
He inquired of those around his bed whether I was present. 
Being answered in the affirmative, I drew to him, and asked 
what he desired. ‘0 Christian/ said he, 'my pains are so 
severe and incessant that without the assisting grace of God I 
must sink, for my strength will be shortly exhausted. Do 
pray that the Lord may graciously lend me his assistance, and 
if according to his will, cause my pains to moderate/ We sung 
a few verses of a hymn. Brother Ettinger, who was also 
present, and myself prayed and besought a throne of grace in 
his behalf. Before we had concluded, the pains abated, and 
in a short time he fell into a slumber. After commending him 
once more to the divine mercy in fervent prayer, I bid him, in 
all probability, a last farewell, and on reaching him my hand 
he said with great emphasis, 'The God of Abraham be with 
thee and bless thee. Remember me at a throne of grace.' ” 

A few days afterward the vestry of Mr. Otterbein's church 
placed upon the record this action: “It was found that our 
preacher was too old to attend the meetings and to act as 
president, and Peter Hoffman was elected president pro tem¬ 
pore.” It was at this time that Mr. Otterbein made the will 
that was probated eight years afterward. He subsequently 
regained some of his wonted strength. There is no account, 
however, of his being, after this sickness, farther from Balti¬ 
more than to the place of Mr. Leonard Yundt, who lived four 
and one-half miles out of the city, on the Frederick road. 
Mr. Yundt often sent in his carriage for him, and he would 
go out and spend the day. 

Instead of Mr. Otterbein's going out now to assist “his 
preachers," they came to assist him. Again and again New- 


OTTERBEIN AND THE UNITED BRETHREN 199 


comer, Geeting, and others went to Baltimore to preach and to 
assist on sacramental and other occasions. The following are 
a few of Newcomer's entries: “1808, April 16. We rode 
thirty-eight miles to Baltimore. I lodged with Father Otter- 
bein. Sunday, 17. This forenoon Brother Geeting preached. 
I gave an exhortation. Otterbein and Geeting administered 
the sacrament. In the afternoon I preached."—“1808, Octo¬ 
ber 2. Brother Baulus preached this forenoon. Otterbein 
and myself administered the sacrament." 

We must not think that all of Mr. Otterbein's energy was 
gone, and that all efficient service was at an end. In Decem¬ 
ber, 1809, Mr. Newcomer was at Baltimore, and heard him 
preach “with great power and unction from on high." In 
1810 he sent a letter to the conference, and represented the 
United Brethren in important negotiations. In the minutes 
of 1812, the last that the pious Geeting lived to record, a list 
including twenty-six names is given of the “brethren that were 
authorized to administer all of the ordinances of God's house," 
the first name, as a matter of course, being that of William 
Otterbein. The account of the events of the year 1813 is 
reserved for the final chapter. 




CHAPTER XIV. 

FRIENDLY RELATIONS—DEATH OF BOEHM AND GEETING. 


An Incident—A Plan of Cooperation with the Methodists—Organic Union 
not Thought of—Early Friendliness—Priority in the Work—Ranke’s 
Description of Popular Movements—Comparative Disadvantages 
of the United Brethren—Unfair Classification—Review of 
Boehm’s Life—Incidents—The Hollingsworth Paper— 

Boehm’s Alleged Withdrawal from the United 
Brethren—Review of Geeting’s Life. 


incident will indicate the honored position that 
n /-! Mr. Otterbein gave to the disciples of John Wesley. 

Rev. John Christian Smith, a junior preacher 
among the United Brethren, once spent three or 
four days with him at Baltimore. The conversation turning 
upon the Methodists, Mr. Otterbein asked him if he had ever 
seen Methodism in the Bible. He answered that he did not 
know, unless there might be an application in Psalms lxviii. 
11-13: “The Lord gave the word: great was the company of 
those that published it. Kings of armies did flee apace: and 
she that tarried at home divided the spoil. Though ye have 
lain among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove 
covered with silver, and her feathers with yellow gold.” Mr. 
Otterbein then turned to Zechariah viii. 20-22: “Thus saith 
the Lord of hosts; It shall yet come to pass that there shall come 
people, and the inhabitants of many cities: and the inhabitants 
of one city shall go to another, saying let us go speedily to 
pray before the Lord, and to seek the Lord of hosts: I will go 
also. Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek 
the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord.” 
Both of the passages given would fitly indicate not only his 
view of Methodism, but also his view of the demands of the 
time and the method of supply. 

We will notice Mr. Otterbein now as representing the 
United Brethren in negotiations looking toward a closer union 
with the Methodists. For a number of years this close union 
had been, by some, earnestly desired. In 1809 a committee 

201 


202 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


was appointd by the Baltimore Conference of the Methodist 
Church, in session at Harrisonburg, Va., to confer with Mr. 
Newcomer and "ascertain whether any, and if any, what 
union could be effected between the Methodist Episcopal 
Church and the United Brethren in Christ.”* The confer¬ 
ence then, in open session, discussed the matter, and gave 
their decision to Mr. Newcomer, in the form of a written 
resolution, which he "was to deliver to Wm. Otterbein in 
Baltimore.” The conference also addressed a letter to the 
United Brethren conference. Mr. Newcomer then com¬ 
municated with Mr. Otterbein, and soon afterward visited 
him in Baltimore. The United Brethren conference, w 7 hich 
met soon afterward, gave a friendly answer to the overtures 
of the Methodists. The letter giving this answer was signed 
by Boehm, Geeting, and Newcomer. The next session of the 
Baltimore Conference was held in Baltimore, in the spring 
of the following year, and during the session, the subject of the 
union received no little attention, both from Methodists and 
United Brethren. Martin Boehm, Christian Crum, Christian 
Newcomer, and Mr. Otterbein in concert with his vestry, on 
the part of the United Brethren, took the matter under con¬ 
sideration. Mr. Newcomer makes the following note in regard 
to the assembling of the vestry: "Today the vestry of Otter- 
bein’s church assembled, to take into consideration a com¬ 
munication of the Methodist conference. Otterbein was 
president of the vestry. The communication related to the 
subject of a closer union between the two societies; namely, 
the Methodist and the United Brethren.” "Terms of accom¬ 
modation,” as they were called by the Methodist conference, 
relating chiefly to the use of churches and to class-meetings 
and love-feasts, were agreed upon. 

Indeed, it was not difficult to form such a "union.” The 
United Brethren had little thought of entering the English 
field, and the Methodists, at that time, had not the least 

*The exact title, “The United Brethren in Christ,” was not in use until a few years later. 
In 1834 when Newcomer’s Journal was translated from the German into the English it was 
easy to give the title, “The United Brethren in Christ,” as then in established use. The Metho¬ 
dists in and following 1809 used the title, “The United Brethren,” or “The German United 
Brethren.” 



FRIENDLY RELATIONS 


203 


thought of a distinct work among the Germans. The merging 
of the two societies into one was, as much from considerations 
on the one side as on the other, impossible, and was not thought 
of. Some, in more recent times, have thought that a complete 
union might have been accomplished. Their mistake grows 
out of their overlooking the early origin, composition, and, to a 
degree, the confirmed ways of the United Brethren; and, on 
the other side, their overlooking the belief of the English 
population that the use of the German language was soon al¬ 
together to cease. Other points they likewise overlook. 
Methodist writers have not been properly aware of the extent 
to which organization and discipline belonged, at an early 
time, to the United Brethren. Quinn’s Journal by J. F. 
Wright, and Bishop Roberts’ Journal by Charles Elliot, and 
other published works, are in error on this point. Even Bishop 
Asbury was not aware that the United Brethren had kept any 
record of their proceedings. References from a United Breth¬ 
ren source to opposition to a form of discipline, should be under¬ 
stood of a printed discipline and the extent of the matter that 
it was feared would be incorporated. In the same way, 
opposition to classing meant opposition to things connected 
with classes. There was, however, much diversity among 
the United Brethren. Yet some that are sometimes spoken of 
as United Brethren were not, in the early period, strictly such. 
From the absence of printed regulations, advanced organiza¬ 
tion, and customary ecclesiastical language, many have been 
led to overlook elements in the rise of the United Brethren that 
were really primitive and important. 

The great friendliness, in early days, of Methodists and 
United Brethren can hardly be appreciated by their successors 
of the present generation. Mr. Spayth, who entered the 
United Brethren conference in 1812, in referring, nearly forty 
years afterward, to this early joyous fellowship, said: "I 
confess it is hard for me to get away from this sunny spot. 
The love, I trust, still burns within my breast. I can look back 
and see the smiles and cordial shakes of the hand—hands now 
cold in death, while mine writes and trembles—and the hearty 
and joyous welcome when Methodists and United Brethren 


204 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


met/' Many on the side of the Methodists have used similar 
expressions. But whatever may have been the benefit, at 
the time, of the ‘"treaty of amity and friendship/' and whatever 
benefits in the most comprehensive and enduring way may 
have been secured, the gain, as regards church-extension and 
numerical increase was wholly with the Methodists. 

Otterbein and Boehm were preaching the grand evangeli¬ 
cal truths that brought about conversions and revivals before 
there was a Methodist class or a Methodist preacher in America. 
In regard to the independent beginnings of the general revival 
culminating in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Doctor 
Blackburn, in his Church History, has the following: “Almost 
contemporaneously the omnipresent Spirit, who breathed 
where he listed, was giving new life to multitudes of people 
through the labors of Christian David among the Moravians, 
the Pietists in Germany, Antoine Court in France, Jonathan 
Edwards in New England, certain pastors in Scotland, Howell 
Harris in Wales, and Whitefield and Wesley in England. The 
widely-extended work had begun before the Wesleys made 
any really popular impression." In some of these cases there 
was not independence as regards the leaders, but in regard 
to the preparation of the people there was yet a preparation in 
individual hearts. In addition to the examples given, one 
might refer to Cocceianism and Labadism in Holland, perhaps 
to Jansenism in the Catholic Church, and a United Brethren 
would not fail to mention the movement under Otterbein. 
Otterbein may have been dependent, in a measure on influence 
from Holland and from the Pietists, but Wesley received even 
more influence from the Moravians, and not less from the 
Pietists. Yet both, by assimilating the influence that they 
received, and by adding something from themselves, gave the 
character of independence to the movements connected with 
their names. The added elements, however, were far from 
being altogether of themselves; they belonged to the age and 
the conditions of society. As these men shared the peculiari¬ 
ties of their age most consciously, they were specially qualified 
for leadership. 


FRIENDLY RELATIONS 


205 


An illustrative quotation in regard to the preparation of 
the people will be introduced from Ranke’s History of the 
Popes. The passage, though on a somewhat different subject, 
gives us a vivid view of the seemingly spontaneous preparation 
of society for great changes, through causes that lie as much 
beyond man’s observation as they lie beyond his ability to 
supply or control them. We would say, doubtless, that the 
preparation for modern evangelical Christianity came from 
God, and yet secondary causes are not to be ignored. When 
men’s minds are hard to move, and religion languishes, ought 
we not to think of a forming or returning force that will list 
society to a more hopeful plane? If the religious impulses 
of an age seem in time to wear themselves shallow, it yet 
remains a fact that artificiality and worldliness become at the 
last insupportable. The paragraph also indicates the tendency 
to likeness in form, and at the same time the possibility of 
great diversity. The following is the passage: “We are not 
to believe that the influence of public opinion on the world 
has begun to make itself felt for the first time in our own day; 
through every age of modern Europe it has constituted an 
important element of social life. Who shall say whence it 
arises or how it is formed? It may be regarded as the most 
peculiar product of that identification of interests which holds 
society in compact forms, as the most intelligible expressions of 
those internal movements and revolutions by which life, shared 
in common, is agitated. * * * It obtains the mastery over 
men’s minds by the force of involuntary convictions. But 
only in its most general outline is it in harmony with itself; 
within these it is reproduced in greater or smaller circles in¬ 
numerable, and with modifications varied to infinity.”* 

Undoubtedly for the general evangelical movement there 
was a wide and ripened preparation in society, resting in 
those deep conditions that God has ordained whereby man is 
to be held within the limits of hope. Undoubtedly, also, no 
one man, or any limited number of men, or any single mani¬ 
festation, should be exalted over the whole field of renewed 


*Vol. I. p. 99. 



206 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


spiritual life. With this digression, let us return to the parallel 
movements of the Methodists and the United Brethren. 

Especially in preaching in the German districts of Pennsyl¬ 
vania, Maryland, and Virginia, Mr. Otterbein and his co¬ 
laborers were many years in advance of the Methodists. When 
the Methodists appeared in the communities that had been 
occupied by the German evangelists, they always met with a 
hearty welcome, and every facility was offered for their largest 
success in preaching and in winning souls. As the young 
people grew up and became acquainted with the English lan¬ 
guage, the door for English preaching became wider and 
wider* 

John Wesley had given to the Methodists many of the 
best elements of the Anglican Church. Their system became 
developed and was thoroughly proved under the eye of Mr. 
Wesley himself, who ranks as one of the best organizers and 
administrators that England has produced. With the con¬ 
fidence inspired by unprecedented success on the other side of 
the water, Methodism entered, in the New World, upon a still 
more vigorous and successful career. With the Germans the 
case was very different. Instead of building so much on his¬ 
toric Christianity, it was with them more as if the Master had 
again gone down to the shore of the sea, and come forth at 
the head of a new band of Galilean fishermen. In some cir¬ 
cumstances, something of this kind may be necessary, yet it 
always has its disadvantages. The aversion of the German 
mind, too, to a thorough discipline, with which Luther in his 
time had to contend, lingered with the Germans of America. 
The embarrassing circumstances, likewise, that belonged to 
the beginning of the movement, gave rise to such a type for 
the work as put, in subsequent times, sad limitations on its 
progress. The circumstances of a German people in a country 
prevailingly English, with the proverbial difficulties arising 
from the attempt to substitute the English for the German 
language, go far in explaining losses and slowness of growth. 

*Quinn, a pioneer of the Methodist Church, in his journal for 1802, in allusion to four of 
“Mr. Otterbein's societies,” says: “They had voluntarily placed themselves under our 
watch-care for the purpose of obtaining English preaching, for the benefit of their neighbors, 
and of their rising families, who were losing a knowledge of the German language.” 



FRIENDLY RELATIONS 


207 


But taking the conditions among the Germans as they were, 
perhaps better, all in all considered, could not have been done. 

After Methodism had become everywhere known, and 
had excited the opposition and ridicule of a certain class of 
society, the United Brethren, as their preaching was attended 
with like phenomena, were called in derision Dutch Methodists. 
Newcomer says that they were thus called by the " worldly- 
minded/' They, however, never accepted the designation. 
There are German Methodists, but they are not the United 
Brethren. Nor are the United Brethren an offshoot or branch 
of Methodism, though a certain class of writers, from motives 
that are perfectly transparent, persist in thus classing them. 
In early times, when the German fathers had occasion to refer 
to both societies, their designations were the "English brethren” 
and the "German brethren.” 

As this chapter and the two preceding chapters trace, 
though on different lines, the life of Mr. Otterbein down to the 
close of 1812, a little space will now be given to two of his co¬ 
laborers, who, in 1812, were called from labor to reward. 
These devoted co-laborers were Martin Boehm and George 
Adam Geeting. In regard to Martin Boehm, too, there are 
some points that connect themselves somewhat with the 
general subject already considered. In giving a running re¬ 
view, more or less of repetition of earlier statements will be 
unavoidable. 

Martin Boehm was born in 1725. He was chosen minister 
in 1756. He did not, however, enter upon ministerial duties at 
once. In 1759 he was chosen full minister, or bishop. He had 
now the privilege of administering the ordinances as well as of 
preaching. When he was asked what he should preach, he 
was told that he should preach "repentance and faith.” 
Ominous words! He was led into the truth by reflecting on the 
doctrines that he himself preached. A journey to Virginia, 
by bringing him in contact with the disciples of Whitefield, 
brought a great blessing to him. Through several years his 
sphere of preaching became wider and more crowded. In¬ 
tensifying opposition was also excited. Between 1766 and 
1768 he met Otterbein at Isaac Long's. After temporary 


208 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


separations and the gradual overcoming of difficulties lying 
in the stage and nature of the work and the disturbed condition 
of the country at large, the widening circle of the labors of 
Boehm again touched the likewise extending circle of Mr. Otter- 
bein's labors. Henceforth their labors were united. But as 
Mr. Boehm had no settled charge over particular congrega¬ 
tions, his itinerant labors, especially in Pennsylvania, were 
more constant and extensive. Beginning with 1789 he was 
present at every conference of the United Brethren down to 
1809, with the exception of those of 1806 and 1808, being 
present in 1809 for the last time. In 1800 and 1805 he was, 
with Otterbein, elected bishop. In 1810 he was present in 
Baltimore when the relations of the United Brethren and the 
Methodists were being considered. About 1805, however, his 
more active labors ceased; and with reason enough, for he was 
seventy-nine years of age. In his later years he was, in his 
appearance, truly venerable. Notwithstanding his many 
hardships, he retained to the last, considerable bodily vigor 
and freshness of countenance. In his preaching he was 
unctuous, magnetic, and strikingly effective. 

A few incidents in regard to Mr. Boehm may not be out 
of place. On one occasion he was to preach on the Conewago, 
in Pennsylvania. A Mr. Brand had opened his house for 
meetings. His neighbor, Mr. B. Carper, was highly offended 
at this, as Boehm and those associated with him were generally 
regarded as “false prophets and deceivers/' It was said that 
they had “such bewitching powers over the people" that when 
they once had a start in a family or neighborhood, no one 
knew where the mischief would end. Carper resolved that he 
would kill the preacher, and so went to Brand's house, and 
stationed himself at the door to wait the close of the meeting. 
At the same time he had an opportunity to listen to the dis¬ 
course. It appeared to him that Brand had told the preacher 
all about him. In an instant a fearful trembling came over 
him. In another moment he turned and fled toward his own 
house. The tones of the preacher and the face with “a large 
beard" followed him, and he found no rest until he was a new 
creature in Christ. 


FRIENDLY RELATIONS 


209 


At a meeting held by Boehm in an open field near York, 
Pennsylvania, a great many people were in attendance. In 
those days of horseback riding, large boots with spurs were 
worn. Among those present was Dr. Peter Senseny, who 
walked about the grounds having his legs ensconced within a 
large pair of riding-boots and spurs. Boehm in dwelling upon 
the wickedness of the times exclaimed, “Some sinners are 
going to hell with boots and spurs on.” These words echoed 
in the heart of Senseny until he was led to make his peace with 
God. He afterward moved to Winchester, Virginia. He was 
for some years an honored preacher of the gospel.* 

At one time Boehm, in company with some others, all on 
horseback, was on his way, as it seems, to a Sabbath-afternoon 
appointment. As they passed along and turned about the 
corner of a hedge they came upon a company of forty or fifty 
boys, called together by a game of ball. Boehm turned his 
horse toward them, got their attention, and gave them a short 
sermon on the sin of Sabbath-breaking. The boys soon quit 
the ground, and the reproof of Boehm led to the conversion, 
soon afterward, of a number of the young people in the com¬ 
munity. 

We now turn to the death of this honored veteran. On 
the 23d of March, 1812, at his own home, Martin Boehm, the 
co-laborer of Otterbein, the laborious and good Martin Boehm, 
fell asleep in Jesus. A few days after his body was placed 
beneath the sod, Bishop Asbury arrived upon the scene, and in 
a fitting funeral discourse paid a noble tribute to the departed. 
Martin Boehm at the time of his death was in his eighty- 
seventh year. He had been a preacher of the gospel for 
fifty-five years. 

A great deal of attention has been given by different 
writers, to a paper relating to Mr. Otterbein and Mr. Boehm 
and their German associates that was published originally, in 
1823, in the Methodist Magazine. The paper has generally 
been supposed to have been written during the life of Bishop 
Asbury by its author, Francis Hollingsworth, the transcriber 
of Bishop Asbury’s journal. But this was not the case. 


♦For this and the preceding incident see Huber’s Autobiography 



210 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Bishop Asbury, shortly before his death, requested Mr. Hol¬ 
lingsworth to draw up an account of the German preachers 
and their work. Mr. Hollingsworth, in his introduction to 
the article referred to, expresses his regret that Mr. Asbury 
had not put the necessary materials at his disposal. The 
“Hollingsworth paper” has value for historical purposes, yet it 
must be used with discrimination. It contains, in the first 
place, an account of Martin Boehm, some of the facts for which 
were gathered by Mr. Hollingsworth. It then gives a list of 
questions proposed by Mr. Asbury, in 1811, to Martin Boehm, 
and the answers to the same as taken down by Henry Boehm. 
It then gives some parts of the sermon that was delivered by 
Mr. Asbury on the occasion of the death of Martin Boehm. 
The observations of Mr. Asbury, however, are not given with¬ 
out the “alteration and substitution of a few sentences and 
words.” Finally there is given a list of questions proposed by 
Mr. Asbury to Mr. Otterbein, with the answers thereto by 
Mr. Otterbein. This last paper will be again referred to at 
the proper place. 

No comment is necessary in regard to the part originating 
with Mr. Hollingsworth. The answers of Martin Boehm to 
Asbury’s questions must not be regarded as at all full, or even 
carefully considered. For example, the answers make Martin 
Boehm to say, after speaking of his esteem for the Methodists, 
“Several of the ministers with whom I labored continued to 
meet in a conference of the German United Brethren;” whereas, 
but one session of the United Brethren conference had been 
held between the session of 1809, when he was himself present, 
and the time when the answers to the questions were taken 
down. Other statements are equally vague or inaccurate. 

In regard to what was gleaned from Mr. Asbury’s sermon, 
it is only necessary to state that it cannot be expected that a 
sketch could be drawn up, in the short time allowed before the 
preaching of a funeral sermon, free from mistakes and one¬ 
sidedness. Bishop Asbury told what he knew best, and told it 
appreciatingly and without prejudice. The sketch should fbe 
taken for all it purports to be—a hasty sketch, slightly revised 
by one that confesses himself to have been little acquainted 


FRIENDLY RELATIONS 


211 


with the matters treated. The statements contained in the 
Hollingsworth paper may be of value when they fall har¬ 
moniously within a known outline; but no one would interpret 
a vague and incomplete statement against a line of concurrent 
acts. 

It is proper to consider here the allegations, sometimes 
made, as to Mr. Boehm’s connection with the Methodists. 
In 1775, according to a statement made by Henry Boehm, 
more likely though about 1777, Methodist preachers first began 
to call at the home of Martin Boehm. As regards any public 
labors in Lancaster County, there were none before about 1780. 
Rupp says that "in 1781 Methodist ministers first visited” the 
county, and that "in 1782 Lancaster Circuit was formed.” 
The wife and some of the children of Martin Boehm early 
united with the Methodists. Some of the family, however, 
continued with the United Brethren, and some of the descend¬ 
ants of Martin Boehm have been United Brethren ministers. 
In 1791 a chapel was built on land then owned by Jacob Boehm, 
the same having been deeded to him eight years before by his 
father. The deed for the church-lot was first made to Christian 
Herr, a zealous member of the United Brethren society and 
at whose house a number of United Brethren conferences were 
held. The lot was the next day deeded to a board of trustees, 
Martin and Jacob Boehm being two of the number, in trust 
for the Methodists. Some of the persons made trustees lived 
in other communities. 

Undoubtedly the matured plans and assured permanency 
of the Methodists had, in ten short years, thoroughly won the 
confidence of Martin Boehm and his German neighbors. The 
basis for the work in the community was United Brethren and 
German; the form and governing character came to be Metho¬ 
dist. Both societies continued for some time in the fullest 
and freest use of the house. Some of the great preachers of 
early Methodism found their way to Boehm Chapel, Bishop 
Asbury among the number. Methodism at that time was a 
rising tide of overwhelming force. Father Boehm enjoyed to 
the fullest the eclat of its great successes. Especially was he 
enraptured when he saw his youngest son Henry a successful 


212 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Methodist preacher, and at length the traveling companion 
of the apostolic Asbury. 

But no one needs to be told that the Methodist system was 
rigorous. Persons not members were allowed to be present at 
the class-meetings only “ every second meeting,” and then at 
the most only “twice or thrice.” At love-feasts persons were 
not allowed under any pretext to be present “oftener than 
twice or thrice,” unless they became “members.” Within the 
memory of men yet young, doors have been closed upon sires 
not Methodists, while their children have enjoyed the privileges 
of a Methodist class-meeting. No one needs to complain of 
this. Such was the rule. This rule, however, was not at first 
enforced in regard to the class-meetings at the Boehm meeting¬ 
house. But in 1802 it was thought necessary that Martin 
Boehm's name should go upon the class-book, if he was to be 
admitted to the meetings. He not unwillingly agreed to this. 
This need not be called unfairness on the side of the Metho¬ 
dists, and certainly was not duplicity on his part. Henry and 
Christian Crum, Asbury informs us, were “members of both 
societies.” Yet if it were not for this testimony of Asbury, 
no one would now know that their names ever went upon a 
Methodist class-book. Other examples of such a connection 
could be given. After 1809, by the plan adopted between the 
United Brethren conference and the Baltimore and Philadel¬ 
phia conferences of the Methodist Church, it was no longer 
necessary to go through these forms in order to obtain the 
privileges named. Martin Boehm's cordial relations with the 
Methodists, from first to last, and this joining, in old age, a 
Methodist class, under the circumstances named, are the sole 
basis for the statement made by some that for thirty-two years 
he was connected with the Methodists. As Martin Boehm 
continued years after he joined the local Methodist society in 
1802 to work in the closest fellowship with the United Brethren, 
being present at the conference of 1809, and at that conference 
signing the communication to the Methodist conference, and 
as after this and before his death he missed only two sessions, 
any one can see where his relations were. Rev. Isaac P. Cook, 
now deceased, a Methodist that was well versed in early 


FRIENDLY RELATIONS 


213 


Methodist and United Brethren history alike, said to the 
writer, one year ago, that he considered Mr. Boehm's relations 
to the Methodists to be but nominal. 

George Adam Geeting we have met at almost every step. 
He has already been called the first complete and well-known 
product of the revival among the Germans. Next to Otterbein 
and Boehm, he subsequently stood as the chief exponent of the 
work. His labors were incessant. He never wavered and 
never tired. He missed only one session of conference—that 
of 1804. He it was that was called upon to bear the chief 
opprobrium of the new movement. If he were preaching in 
our day, no one would think of calling him a fanatic. Mildness, 
good judgment, and excellent facility in suiting himself to 
occasions, characterized him. 

Spayth says of him: “Brother Geeting was like an early 
spring sun rising on a frost-silvered forest, which gradually 
affords more light and heat until you begin to hear the crackling 
of the ice-covered branches and the dripping of the melted 
snow as if it were a shower of rain, and until a smiling, joyous 
day appears. * * * His winning manners and shining talents 
secured for him universal respect and esteem, good congrega¬ 
tions, and what was much more important, access to the hearts 
and consciences of those who came to hear him. He would 
follow the sinner in his devious paths, showing the severity 
of God's holy law in a manner that made stout hearts to quail 
and tremble; and then, with feelings and language peculiar to 
himself, present to the stricken-hearted a loving Savior, and 
in tones so beseechingly sweet, that the effect was invariably 
a congregation in tears." 

When speaking of the opposition that he met, he would 
say, as the tears came to his eyes, “For the hurt of the daughter 
of my people am I hurt." 

He was Mr. Otterbein's closest personal friend. Otterbein 
loved to be at no other place as he loved to be at Geeting's on 
the Antietam. There is something deeply pathetic in the 
attachments of these two men, ministers in the same great 
work—attachments that were not broken or impaired through 
the most critical and troubled times. Bishop Asbury knew 


214 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Geeting well, and placed his encomium upon him. Henry 
Boehm, who often heard him preach, calls him “a splendid 
preacher/' the “most splendid orator among the United 
Brethren in Christ." After old age had robbed Mr. Otterbein 
of some of his wonted power, sometimes his out-door audiences 
would scatter somewhat from the stand, but when Geeting 
would rise to speak, as was long remembered by those that 
heard him, his magnetic power and melting tones would draw 
the people compactly about him. 

On the 28th of June, 1812, this servant of God calmly fell 
asleep. Accompanied by his wife he had gone to Baltimore 
to spend a week or two with Otterbein. He preached once 
more in Otterbein’s pulpit. Becoming indisposed, he shortened 
his visit and set out for home. He put up the second night 
about thirty miles from Baltimore, at a public-house kept by 
a Mr. Snyder, where on similar visits he had often stopped. 
He became worse during the night. He spoke to those about 
him of the Christian's hope. Toward morning it became 
evident that the end was near. Mr. Spayth may tell the 
rest: “He became silent, and then said, T feel as though my 
end had come. Hark! hark!—who spoke? Whose voice is 
this I hear? Light! light! what golden light! Now all is 
dark again! Please help me out of this bed.' They did so. 
'Now let us sing— 

Komm’ du lang verlangte Stunde, 

Komm’ du Lebensgeist von oben; 

O wie soil mein froher Munde 
Jesu deine Treue loben. 

Wann mich deine Liebesmacht, 

Dir zu dienen frei gemacht.’ 

TRANSLATION. 

Come, thou long expected moment, 

Come, thou Spirit from on high, 

’Tis thy call, my Lord and Master; 

How shall I express my joy, 

When thy grace and power of love, 

Bids me rise to climes above? 

“He now sunk on his knees, leaning against the bed, and 
prayed fervently, giving thanks to God for his abundant 


FRIENDLY RELATIONS 


215 


mercy toward him, his unprofitable servant. A prayer, this 
was, offered up at the very gate of heaven, and in it, mark you, 
there was no doubt, no fear, no desire for a longer stay on 
earth; but God the Father was confidently asked, for the sake 
of Jesus Christ our Savior, to look upon him, to hear and 
accept this his petition, to receive his poor servant, and to 
take him to himself, for the sake of the great love wherewith 
he had loved him, and delivered him from all evil. 

“He was helped into bed again, and, in about fifteen 
minutes, while his hands were calmly folded, his ransomed 
spirit fled.” He was in the seventy-second year of his age, 
and had spent forty years in the ministry. 

The death of Christian Newcomer, who ended his labors 
with his life eighteen years later, was similar to that of Geeting. 
But to attempt a further account of this persevering associate 
of Mr. Otterbein, and so largely the successor to his burdens, 
is beyond the present purpose. 

In the next chapter will be given some incidents of Mr. 
Otterbein’s life, and in the next following will be given any of 
Mr. Otterbein’s papers not already given that are still extant 
and accessible. 




























/ 



















CHAPTER XV 

DOMESTIC LIFE—MISCELLANEOUS INCIDENTS. 


Situation at the Parsonage—The Drucks Family—Domestic Incidents— 
Personal Habits—Benevolence—Otterbein and His Carriage-Boys— 
Otterbein in the Family—As Preacher and Pastor—Oppositions— 
Figures—Freemasonry—Unfavorable Incidents. 

/ T is proposed to give in this chapter facts in regard to 
Mr. Otterbein's more private life, and miscellaneous inci¬ 
dents for which no suitable place has been found in the 
preceding pages. Some of the things given may be wanting 
in dignity and illustrative quality, or, for some other reason 
may be deemed unsuitable to appear here. But it may be 
supposed that in consequence of their being what they are they 
have been handed down; and from the scantiness of our 
knowledge as to Mr. Otterbein's every-day life, it is deemed 
best to present such examples as have survived thus far the 
accidents of time. Thoughtful persons will consider, too, that 
the life of no one, however great or however engaged, is con¬ 
stantly attended with imposing circumstances. 

When Mr. Otterbein went to Baltimore his wife had 
already been dead six years. For forty additional years he 
was to walk alone. The parsonage that was erected for him 
in 1786 was a small cottage of four rooms. For years Miss 
Elizabeth Schwope kept house for him. After his death she 
was married to a Mr. Brevett. The house stood close to the 
street, in front of where the present parsonage stands. Mr. 
Otterbein's study was on the side of the house next to the 
church. He possessed a good library, and spent much of his 
time, when at home, in his study. While his manner of life 
was simple, it was also, in every way, what was required of a 
person in his position. He cultivated flowers, and the children 
that had occasion to come to the parsonage were made glad 
by a bouquet plucked by his hand. Everything was kept 
scrupulously clean. Even the bam where he kept his cow had 
frequently to undergo a thorough whitewashing. 

217 


218 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Some facts in reference to domestic life at the parsonage 
were handed down by Catharine and Elizabeth Drucks, who 
served in his house as domestics. The Drucks family, con¬ 
sisting of father and mother, one son, and three daughters, 
were redemptioners; that is, when they came to America their 
time was sold to pay their passage-money. Catharine subse¬ 
quently worked at Otterbein’s. She was afterward married, 
and finally came to Cincinnati, Ohio, where members of her 
family still live. When Catharine left the parsonage, her 
sister Elizabeth took her place; and so great was Otterbein’s 
esteem for her that he made her a gift through his will. His 
household effects were for the most part divided out to those 
that had served in his house. By these persons he was ever 
remembered for his uniform kindness. 

Mr. Otterbein would always have all that lived with him 
to attend church. It is said that he would go to market every 
Saturday, and that as long as turkeys could be had he would 
bring a small one home. This he would have prepared and 
partially roasted, and when church-time came it was placed 
in a small oven moderately heated, there to remain until the 
family returned from church. 

He was very precise as to his dress and appearance. When 
away from home and having occasion to have washing done, 
he would sometimes, or at some places, stand by and tell how 
his shirt-bosoms should be ironed. 

In earlier times he wore a pulpit gown while preaching, 
but not in later times. In later times, too, instead of the 
regular clergyman’s suit, he wore the usual citizen’s suit. 

He was very systematic and regular in his habits. In the 
management of the house everything was under strict system. 
He was very regular in the matter of family worship. The 
first part of every Friday it was his custom to fast, and during 
this time he always remained at home. On Friday afternoons 
he met his catechetical class. Among the children he was 
always tender, solicitous, and impressive. 

Toward the close of his life he always went to Andrew 
Bruner’s on Friday evenings, and there took his evening meal. 
Mr. Bruner was for some time a member of his vestry. He 


DOMESTIC LIFE—VARIOUS INCIDENTS 219 


was a sugar-refiner, and always kept Mr. Otterbein supplied 
with loaf-sugar, of which he was very fond. It was his way 
to take the sugar into his mouth and then drink his coffee over 
it, a habit in which he was not alone. A daughter of Andrew 
Bruner, Mrs. Hoffman, still living in 1884 at the age of eighty- 
six years, remembered much of Mr. Otterbein. She was bap¬ 
tized and catechised by him. 

After a time it was thought that Mr. Otterbein ought to 
have a better parsonage. When the street that ran west of 
the church was changed from its diagonal course, considerable 
space was left in front of the church, which was afterward 
used for building-sites. On the corner above the church, a 
commodious and substantial parsonage was erected. Mr. Ot¬ 
terbein, however, preferred to stay in the cottage, and directed 
that the new parsonage should be rented, and the money given 
to the poor. 

His kindness toward the poor manifested itself in constant 
deeds of charity. Two old ladies that were members of his 
church, Mrs. Rupp and Mrs. Hess, he almost kept out of his 
private means. 

The following is an example of his liberal spirit: A suit 
of clothing was much worn, and his friends sent him cloth for 
a new suit. Still the old garments were worn. When asked 
if his tailor had forgotten him, he wiped a tear from his eye, 
and pointed to some indigent persons opposite his house. 
After this incident, some of his friends frequently furnished 
him with suitable kinds of cloth for distribution. 

Another incident, showing that with him true humanity 
and true Christianity were one, may be given. He frequently 
called upon John Hildt, a member of his vestry that had a 
conveyance, and said, “John, hitch up; I will ride out.” He 
then would have him drive from one store to another, to stores 
belonging to persons out of the church as well as to those be¬ 
longing to his own members. He would ask the owners in a 
plain simple way to give him so much flour, sugar, or cloth, as 
the case might be; and so great was his influence over the 
people in general, that his requests were never refused. He 
would have Mr. Hildt take him from one poor person to an- 


220 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


other, until the several cases of want were relieved. He would 
then say, “Now John, drive me home again.” This same 
course he would repeat as often as similar cases of want pre¬ 
sented themselves. 

His kindness of heart showed itself in many other ways. 
Major George Grandstaff, who died in 1878 at the age of 
ninety-one, was sometimes sent, when a boy, to bring Mr. 
Otterbein from Hagerstown, Maryland, to meetings that were 
appointed in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia, the distance 
between the points being eighty-five miles. He often related 
how, when the weather was bad, Mr. Otterbein took him 
between his knees and wrapped his great coat about him. 

The same disposition expressed itself in the form of a 
general principle on another occasion. A boy had been sent 
by his father to take him from York County, Pennsylvania, 
back to Baltimore. During a slight rain, the carriage was 
driven up before a substantial farm-house, where Mr. Otter¬ 
bein had frequently stopped. A low fence in front was to be 
crossed by walking over inclined planks, leaning from each 
side to the top of the fence. As the man that came out to 
greet them started down the incline, his feet, from the slipper¬ 
iness of the plank, went out from under him, and he came 
down flat upon his back. This was too much for the boy, and 
he broke out into an unrestrained laugh. Mr. Otterbein turned 
to him with a look that at once subdued his mirth, and said 
in words that the boy always remembered, “Never laugh at 
another person’s misfortune.” 

With some of the boys that were thus sent to take Mr. Ot¬ 
terbein back and forth the task was not so pleasant. Some 
had a fear of him because he seemed to them such a holy man, 
and because he talked to them in regard to their souls. Also, 
when unconverted men took him from place to place he pressed 
the matter of their salvation so upon them that, as some of 
them expressed it, it seemed that the end of the journey and 
the chance to get away from his dreaded presence would never 
come. Some of them did not get away from the dread that he 
inspired until they were new creatures in Christ. 


DOMESTIC LIFE-VARIOUS INCIDENTS 221 


In the family, Mr. Otterbein was always sociable, taking 
notice of every person present, even to the youngest. He 
frequently visited Rev. Adam Ettinger's. Mr. Ettinger had 
been a minister in the Reformed Church, but afterward sided 
with the United Brethren. His son, also named Adam, after¬ 
ward a minister among the followers of Jacob Albright, relates 
that as Mr. Otterbein was making the acquaintance of the 
different members of the family he came to him. He then 
said, “And what is your name?” “Adam,” was the reply. 
“Adam?” said Mr. Otterbein. “Oh! Adam ate the apple.” 
While always making himself agreeable, he yet always inspired 
reverence and esteem. 

When spending an evening at a place his custom was, 
when the hour for worship came, to call about him the members 
of the family and any others that might be present; and he 
then would read a portion of God’s word. He would then 
inquire separately of each one old enough to understand such 
matters, in regard to his or her religious state. He would 
then give such advice and instruction as the case of each 
seemed to require. After this acquaintance with the condition 
of each he would offer a prayer in which the wants of all would 
be remembered. 

Mr. Otterbein’s preaching has already been referred to, 
under different forms. Yet an incident or two in this line may 
be added. The following was related by an old lady, who, 
when a girl, heard him preach in Hagerstown. “I never saw 
him or heard him preach except that one time. He was not 
what I would call a loud speaker, though he spoke plainly and 
with much power. He preached on repentance and the way 
of salvation, and I never heard the way laid down so plainly 
as he laid it down that day. I was forced to weep all the 
time that he was preaching. I well remember as he closed the 
Bible how he stretched his hands out toward the congregation 
and said, 'This is the way, and long have I desired to come 
and to tell you of it.’ Some did not like the sermon, but it 
was the first sermon that reached my heart.” 

When very old, he was once preaching to an out-door 
audience, and as he proceeded, owing perhaps in part to the 


222 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


difficulties under which he spoke, his bodily strength became 
almost fully exhausted. He raised his eyes and hands toward 
heaven and exclaimed, “0 Lord, help me this one time more 
to preach thy word.” From this point in his sermon on to its 
close, he was able to speak with great spirit and power. 

Mr. Otterbein was an excellent pastor. His labors in 
this capacity went much beyond the circle of his members. 
He believed in personal work, and in meeting men in the con¬ 
dition in which they stood. His method with a skeptic will 
illustrate. A Mr. Zollicoffer, descended from a noble Swiss 
family, was skeptical and brought his difficulties to Mr. Otter¬ 
bein. This and that he could not understand. Mr. Otterbein 
asked him if he could understand how his finger-nails grew. 
It was difficult for the skeptic to see how so common a thought 
could have a bearing upon his difficulties. But as he reflected 
he was convinced of the folly of seeking first to remove all 
difficulties. He was converted soon afterward, and became 
one of Mr. Otterbein's principal members. 

A fault-finding professor once visited him, and became 
garrulous in his complaints against his brethren. In the midst 
of his harangue, Mr. Otterbein touched him on the shoulder 
and said, "Stop, brother, I perceive that you have got into the 
devil's office!” meaning that he had become an accuser of the 
brethren. 

Mr. Otterbein would not be the Otterbein of history if 
no smell of fire should be found on his clothes. A few incidents 
will be given showing some of his less happy experiences. He, 
in company with a man that in 1841 was still living in Balti¬ 
more, went out to a certain place where he was to preach. 
They found the doors and windows of the house all closed, 
and a large collection of people outside. Otterbein asked, 
"Why is the church not opened?” The answer was, "We 
dare not hear you, for you are a Methodist.” He did not wait 
to argue, but went upon the church steps and began to sing. 
While he sung the doors were opened, and he went in and 
preached, not failing to rebuke the people for their sins. One 
of the elders was a drunkard. In the midst of his remarks 
Mr. Otterbein said, "If a drunkard should meet a dog, he 


DOMESTIC LIFE—VARIOUS INCIDENTS 223 


ought to lift his hat and say, Thou hast more sense than 1/ ” 
This was in the time before drugged liquors and the feverish 
life of more recent times had made it so difficult for men to 
control themselves. Later the chief odium came to be on the 
drink-seller. The effect of Mr. Otterbein’s sermon—of the 
spirit back of it rather than of a few severe words in it—proved 
highly wholesome in the community. 

The above instance was not the only case of Mr. Otter- 
bein’s being locked out of a church. Among other instances, 
he was locked out of the church at Sharpsburg, Maryland, on 
an occasion when he was to preach a funeral discourse. 

At one time some opponents of Mr. Otterbein in Baltimore 
induced a person of vile character to give out reports damaging 
to his reputation, and then to go to one of his class-meetings 
to face him down and to throw confusion into the meeting. 
But the effort was so far from successful that the bold sinner, 
under the spirit of the meeting, came under conviction and 
confessed to the conspiracy. 

Mr. Otterbein was much given to speaking through 
figures or symbols. He once visited a Mr. Martina. During 
the conversation he asked him where he attended church. On 
receiving his answer Mr. Otterbein replied, “As the beast, so 
is the food.” The answer continued to ring in Martina’s ears, 
and finally led him to seek more and truer light. He became 
a sincere Christian and a very active worker. 

Mr. Otterbein was once asked what he thought of the use 
of an organ in church. He replied that it put him in mind of 
a boy in the street riding a stick. In other words, the organ 
would not help much. 

At one time there was trouble in a Methodist church in 
Baltimore over the introduction of an organ. The case was 
referred to Otterbein for decision. His decision was against 
the use of the instrument, and this decision was accepted by 
all concerned. 

A minister once asked him what he thought of introducing 
political matters into the pulpit. He answered, “He that goes 
upon the sea will be tossed about by the waves, and whether 
he will get to shore time must determine.” 


224 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


His opinion of freemasonry will be of interest to many. 
The subject was once brought up in his vestry. Otterbein 
answered: “A freemason cannot be a Christian/' which 
settled the question. Notwithstanding the many differences 
in regard to this and kindred subjects, that, in later times, 
appeared in the church that Otterbein was the chief instrument 
in founding, the spirit of Otterbein's view has strongly pre¬ 
vailed especially in regard to ministers. Mr. Wesley, whose 
parallel with Otterbein can be shown at a hundred points, 
gives the following in his journal: “I went to Ballymena and 
read a strange tract that professes to discover the inmost 
recesses of freemasonry, said to be Translated from the French 
original lately published at Berlin.' I incline to think it is a 
genuine account. Only if it be, I wonder that the author is 
suffered to live. If it be, what an amazing banter upon all 
mankind is freemasonry!" 

As an offset against any undue praise, and as a specific 
against undue exaltation of the past, what may be called un¬ 
favorable incidents or facts may not be without a value. A 
few such facts connected with the life of Mr. Otterbein, all that 
are known to the writer, are these: Otterbein had the habit of 
smoking. Many occupying similar stations used tobacco in 
some form, Bishop Asbury among the number. Likewise, 
along with even the best men of the times, Otterbein's temper¬ 
ance principles, though strongly marked, did not prevent him 
from allowing a restricted place to the manufacture and use of 
intoxicating drinks. Another fact, not at the time regarded 
as at all derogatory, is that when in 1789 the tower to the 
Baltimore church was to be erected and the bells purchased, 
by a special act of the Maryland legislature, permission was 
given for the raising of money by a lottery. Many churches 
in Pennsylvania and Maryland received like "acts of grace," 
as any one can see by looking through the documents belonging 
to that period. Lotteries were not then what they have been 
in more recent times. But let no one frame an apology for 
tobacco, stimulants, or lotteries. Let us be grateful that our 
age, on all these subjects, can show an improved sentiment. 


CHAPTER XVI. 
OTTERBEIN’S EXTANT PAPERS. 


Scanty Literary Remains—Destroyed his Papers—Letter on Doctrine and 
Discipline—Letter on the Millennium—Letter on the Theater—Letter 
to an Intemperate Man—Latin Sermons—Sermon Sketch—Books. 

R. OTTERBEIN wrote little, and of this little 
the very least has been handed down. His 
disinclination to writing appears in the brevity 
and condensation of his entries in the church- 
books at the various places where he served as pastor. He was 
a preacher, and not a writer. When he wrote it was to serve 
a present practical purpose. A number of letters written by 
him were preserved for a time, but outside of what have al¬ 
ready been inserted or referred to, only about half a dozen are 
known to be now in existence. The original autographs of 
four of these are preserved at the publishing house of the 
United Brethren in Christ, at Dayton, Ohio. Many letters 
written by him were doubtless, at the time of his death and 
for a time afterward, in the hands of individuals in different 
places. It is scarcely strange that so few of these are now 
extant. 

What is strange is that of papers that must have been 
in his own hands scarcely anything remains. Letters written 
to him by various persons, some records of his work, and papers 
on different subjects must, to some extent at least, have been 
collected in his hands. His aversion to writing, and the indis¬ 
position of some persons of his type of mind to preserve papers 
after their first use has been served, would account for scanty 
remains, but not for such a complete absence of papers of 
these several classes. Only one letter to him has been handed 
down. This was a letter written by a German count. His 
goods were divided out; yet many of his books along with a 
few articles belonging to the house, were left at the parsonage, 
and if papers had been in existence they would have been pre- 



225 


226 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


served at the same place. Little care was taken, however, by 
his successors, of what was left at the parsonage. Yet if there 
had been papers stored away, there would certainly have been 
some mark of their subsequent history. 

All of this lends support to the statement purporting to 
have come from Rev. John Hildt, that Mr. Otterbein, within 
the last year of his life, in the presence of Mr. Hildt, destroyed 
his papers. There seems to be no room to doubt that some 
papers, at least, were thus destroyed. The fact that Mr. Otter¬ 
bein a short time before he died turned over to John Hildt 
simply his ordination certificate, and perhaps his letter of 
recommendation from the Herbom faculty, seems to indicate 
that a few papers of this character were the only ones that 
were selected for preservation. The reasons for his course 
were doubtless his well-known modesty, and his determination 
to leave his reputation, as well as the work of his life, to that 
Providence to whom he had committed his life, his all. 

The four letters referred to above, will now be given. 
Some of them, perhaps all of them, were gathered by Rev. Wm. 
Brown, who between 1825 and 1828 was pastor of Otterbein's 
congregation in Baltimore, and who between 1833 and 1837 
held the office of bishop. The letter immediately following 
was written in German, and is without date or signature. It 
appears to be one of several letters written in reply to a captious 
opponent of the work in which he was engaged. The person 
addressed may have been a minister. The subjects presented 
in the letter are sanctification, justification, and church- 
discipline. The letter is as follows: 

You ask what sanctification is, and what is accomplished 
thereby. Here the best thing for us to do would be that we 
both pray for the spirit of sanctification, since before we do this 
we cannot by any means comprehend it. The word of God 
speaks, however, plainly enough, making a difference between 
justification and sanctification. And this difference accords 
also with reason; for, is it not one thing when Pharaoh takes 
Joseph from prison, and another when he enrobes him in kingly 
apparel and sets him a prince over the whole land of Egypt? 

You ask what faith is, how we live by it, and how, through 
it, we live continually free from sin. That you descend so 


OTTERBEIN’S EXTANT PAPERS 


227 


low as to ask what faith is astonishes me, especially as you 
otherwise are so high-minded. But what it is to live by faith, 
let your children, who perform the duties the mother enjoins, 
and who live meantime without caring for bread, tell you. He 
that denies the possibility of living without sin, denies God, 
and deserves no other answer than the one the Savior gave the 
Sadducees—“Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the 
power of God.” (Matthew xxii. 29). 

That there is a difference, too, between conversion and 
sanctification we have eternal witness in the Bible and the 
types therein contained. God acts according to his free and 
unlimited power and wisdom, calling one directly, another 
indirectly; pulling some at once fully from destruction as a 
brand from the burning, while with others the work proceeds 
more slowly. 

Concerning the assurance of the forgiveness of sins, and 
wherein the same consists, David gives us from his own ex¬ 
perience sufficient information in Psalms xciv. 19, ciii. 3-5, 
cxvi. 1-8. And how plainly does Paul speak thereof in Romans 
v. 1-3, viii. 15-23. I have, however, never preached that a 
person must be converted in a moment, and consequently you 
blame me for something that has no foundation in fact. 

That justification and the pardon of sin are one and the 
same gracious gift is clearly seen in Acts xiii. 38 and 39, and 
at that we shall have to leave it. The pardon of sin is a pro¬ 
nouncing just, a setting free. If, for instance, your neighbor 
owes you a sum of money, and he comes to your house with a 
friend that pays the money for him, what will you do? You 
will now acquit your neighbor. This you know. You ask 
how this is accomplished, and what faith we must have before 
we receive with certainty the pardon of sin. These are ques¬ 
tions with which you discredit yourself not a little, and if you 
do not reveal ignorance, then the spirit of an impure mind. 
You ask how soon this work is accomplished. Do you mean 
what length of time God requires before he justifies the sinner 
or pardons his sin? Then I must tell you, you know not what 
you ask. But that I may not leave you in the dark, I will 
point you to the high-priest in the Old Testament, who pro¬ 
nounced the lepers clean. This will make it plain to you how 
soon God may pardon a man's sin. And if you are still unable 
to understand, then think of your neighbor whom you ac¬ 
quitted of his indebtedness as soon as his friend had paid the 
money for him. Then ask him if he knows that he is acquitted, 
and how long it was until he knew it. 


228 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


But if the sense of your question is how much time the 
act itself of justification or pardon requires, then I must 
simply ask you again, how much time, how many hours or 
days did it require you to acquit your neighbor after his friend 
paid the debt for him? And if this is not sufficient, then ask a 
judge who by a grant of pardon spared the life of a thief, how 
many days he required for this purpose,—whether he acquitted 
the prisoner partly one day and partly the next, and so on until 
at length he was fully acquitted. I hope you may here see 
yourself in your ignorance. 

On the matter of church-discipline you complain. I find 
the best discipline in Matthew xviii., and will in the future do 
all things in accordance therewith. Therefore your question 
on this point was unnecessary. 

Your questions are herewith answered. You will likely 
think my answers unbecoming and derisive. I have for a long 
time spoken in a friendly way with you, and you have become 
unbecoming, and I find it now time to answer foolishness with 
foolishness. But I mock you not, but would show you that 
while you think yourself smart, you make yourself to scoff and 
mock. 

The next letter, rather part of a letter, is on the subject 
of the millennium. It is written in English and shows that 
Mr. Otterbein, at the time when it was written, had fairly 
mastered the English language. The words are appropriate 
and the constructions good. The orthography, though, repre¬ 
sents the words as a German would pronounce them. The 
letter gives the generally-accepted doctrine on the subject 
presented. The following is the letter: 

The subject upon which you request me to give my opinion 
has employed the minds of many pious men; and Christians 
are divided upon it. They generally believe—and that is my 
opinion too—that there is in prospect a more glorious state 
of the church than ever has been; and this we call the millen¬ 
nium. Some of them believe that Christ will personally reign 
in his church on earth a thousand years; but the best and most 
judicious divines do not believe that. And in this I agree with 
them. And, with respect to the resurrection of David, I do 
not see one sentence in divine revelation to countenance this 
opinion. 

Some of the divines have gone so far as to fix the precise 
year when this glorious state of the church will begin. I think 
it wise in all to be cautious about forming opinions upon all 


OTTERBEIN'S EXTANT PAPERS 


229 


subjects that the Scriptures do not decide. The divines agree 
that before this happy time the antichrist, the man of sin, will 
appear (II. Thessalonians ii. 3, 4), and that in his time Chris¬ 
tians will be persecuted—the antichrist will persecute them— 
in a manner they never have been persecuted from the founda¬ 
tion of the world. 

It appears from Revelation, and it is the opinion of the 
best divines, that before the millennium begins the seven vials 
of the wrath of God will be poured out, and that the scattered 
Jews will be, must be gathered, and the fullness of the gentiles 
brought in, before the millennium can be accomplished in its 
full extent. It is certain that these great events will come, and 
they seem to be at the door. The prophecies will be fulfilled, 
and they are fulfilling from day to day, and you may live to 
see great things. But what to do now? Hear what Christ 
says: “Therefore be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye 
think not the Son of man cometh.” And that is the best thing 
we can do—make our calling and election sure. The grace of 
the Lord be with you. My respects to Mr. Hubler, your 
father, mother, and sister. 

Your obedient servant, 

W. Otterbein. 

The next letter, also written in English is on the subject 
of the theater. On the 26th day of December, 1811, the theater 
at Richmond, Virginia, took fire during an exhibition, and 
seventy-two persons lost their lives. The wife and daughter of 
a cousin of Mr. Otterbein’s were among the unfortunate 
votaries of pleasure that thus came to an untimely death. The 
present letter was written by Mr. Otterbein to his cousin soon 
after his great bereavement. 

Baltimore, February 16, 1812. 

Dear Cousin: —I lament the untimely death of your 
beloved wife and daughter. It is shocking to think of it. A 
hundred immortal souls have been hurried, and that un¬ 
expectedly, in less than an hour's time, into an awful eternity! 
Did that happen by chance? The wicked and unbelieving 
may imagine it. The Christian, who believes in a world- 
governing God, and in the divinity of the Bible, sees the hand 
of the Almighty, without whose will not one hair could fall 
from our head, even on such a calamitous night. Do the in¬ 
habitants of Richmond see this? I wish they may, but I fear 
not many will. The committee made a resolve to abstain from 
all worldly pleasure—dancing for example—for four months. 


230 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Only four months! And what afterward? May they then 
play and dance again? It seems so. But this appears from 
another resolve: the committee hope that their calamity will 
be a warning, that no theater should be permitted to be opened 
until every facility has been provided for the escape of the 
audience. Oh, shame! How God-offending and God-mocking 
is this resolve. If they had made a resolve against the building 
of another play-house they would have done honor to them¬ 
selves, to God, and to religion. 

And what do the play-actors say? It is surprising! 
They are sorry; and what for? Is it for the souls that perished 
on that terrible night, and of whose blood they are guilty? 
By no means. These deluded and hardened sinners are sorry 
but for the loss they have suffered They are afraid that they 
will be banished from Richmond. Oh, may this prove to be 
true! Oh, that you actors may be banished, not only from 
Richmond, but from every town and city in America! The 
angels in heaven would rejoice at this. Woe unto you, you 
devoted servants of the devil! Unhappy men! You have 
destroyed hundreds in Richmond. You are guilty of their 
blood, and the righteous God will certainly require it from 
your hands in the day of judgment. Tremble! Oh, tremble! 
How will you escape the damnation of hell except you turn and 
repent? May the Lord give you grace. 

And what do you say, my dear cousin? You have lost a 
beloved wife and a dear child. Do you see and feel the hand 
that lies so heavy on you? I know you do. But do you see 
and feel that terrible evil, the sin, that brought this calamity 
upon you? Awake! my dear cousin, awake. The Lord has 
blessed you with the temporal things of this world. But what 
are all these but vanity? I know you would give your houses 
and all your silver if you could call back your wife and child. 
It is impossible. Thank God that you are alive yet. Adore 
the hand that has afflicted you. Pray for grace. Oh, don't 
neglect that! Cry aloud! The Lord is merciful. Pray for 
grace to repent and believe. W. Otterbein. 

The remaining letter was addressed to a man that in 1804 
was a member of Mr. Otterbein's church in Baltimore, but that 
afterward left Baltimore, and fell into intemperate habits. 
While the letter says nothing of total abstinence in general — 
the necessity of this not at that time being generally appre¬ 
hended—it certainly urges total abstinence upon persons in 
the condition of the person addressed. The letter was written 


OTTERBEIN'S EXTANT PAPERS 


231 


in German, and for energy of exhortation and godly interest 
in an enslaved soul, it furnishes a truly lofty example. The 
letter will be given in German, as well as in English, in deference 
to the request of certain friend?, who desire to have some of the 
expressions of Otterbein in his original German. 

Baltimore, Juni 5, 1807 

Freund Hoeflich! —Soviel Muehe mir auch das Schreiben 
machet, so bin ich in meinem Gewissen gedrungen dieses 
wenige zu schreiben. Ich habe wohl nichts weniger vermuthet, 
denn von Zeit zu Zeit solche unangenehme Nachricht zu 
erhalten. Ihr seid, seitdem Ihr Baltimore verlassen habt, 
dem starken Getraenk ueber die Maszen ergeben. Ihr waret 
schon bei einigen eurer Freunden, da Ihr noch bei uns waret, 
desswegen in Verdacht; da wir aber nicht gewiss davon waren, 
daher hoffeten wir, es geschaehe Euch Unrecht an dem, somit, 
dass wir besser von Euch gedacht denn es war. 0, wie sehr 
kraenkt uns das! Ueberall muessen wir hoeren, der Hoeflich 
ist ein grosser Saeufer. Ists moeg ich! Ein Mann der die 
Wahrheit erkennet und bekennet, ist so schrecklich verfalien. 
Dashaben wir nicht vermuthet. Wir hofften, Ihr wuerdet ein 
Salz in eurer Nachbarschaft sein, ein Licht und Leiter. Es ist 
das Gegentheil. Mein Freund, Ihr bringet Euch in Unglueck. 
Ihr kraenket eure Familie, eure Kinder verachten Euch. 
Doch das ist das Wenigste. Ein Mann der Gott mit dem 
Munde bekennet, und verleugnet Ihn mit seinen Werken, das 
ist schrecklich. 0 Hoeflich! Ihr gehet verloren. Das ist 
nicht alles; Ihr schadet dem Christenthum und indem Ihr 
den Gottlosen in seinen Suenden steifet, so reizet Ihr Andere, 
und machet Euch an Ihrem Blute schuldig, damit Ihr Euch 
ein schreckliches Urtheil zuziehet. Erzittert, und schlaget in 
Euch. Entweder muesset Ihr Euch entschliessen zur Hoelle 
zu gehen, oder Ihr muesset aufgeben. Es ist nicht anders, und 
das wisset Ihr und glaubet es. Hoeflich! Hoeflich! Bessert 
Euch schnell. Gebet auf. Es ist Zeit. Gebet auf, sonst 
wird Euch Gott aufgeben, und dann, 0 wehe! Ihr fraget: 
Ist mir denn noch zu helfen? Es ist, ja es ist. Eure Kraft ist 
zu wenig; die Kraft des Allmaechtigen aber vermags. Ihr 
muesset aber das starke Getraenk aufgeben. Ihr muesset es 
ganz aufgeben. Und duerft Ihr Euch besinnen? Ists nicht 
besser hier Durst leiden denn in der Hoelle duersten, und das 
ewig, und Pein leiden. 0, entschliesset Euch. Das muss Ich 
Euch sagen: Ihr werdet Arbeit kriegen. Der Satan wird 
Euch nicht so leicht los geben. Indessen duerft Ihr nicht 
bange sein. Der Allmaechtige Heiland wird Euch beistehen. 


232 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Wagets auf Ihn, Er wird Euch durchhelfen. Betet, betet, 
rufet laut, haltet an. Sagets eurer Frau und Kinder, sagets 
euren werthen Freunden dass sie Euch helfen beten. 

0, wie viel besser waeret Ihr mit eurer Familie in Balti¬ 
more geblieben. Da war dieser hoellische Geist noch gebunden. 
Ach, Gott wolle sich ueber Euch erbarmen. Das ist mein 
Wunsch und Gebet fuer Euch und euer Haus. Ich gruesse 
Euch und euer Haus, die Christina, die Mary, Grimbe, Wahl, 
und alle andern. 

W. Otterbein. 


TRANSLATION. 

Baltimore, June 5, 1807. 

Friend Hoeflich: —Although writing causes me much 
trouble, I feel bound in my conscience to write to you these few 
lines. I had not thought to receive from time to time such 
unpleasant news from you. You are, since you left Baltimore, 
above all measure in the habit of using strong drink. Some 
of your friends had a suspicion of your drinking while you 
were yet in Baltimore; but as we were not sure about it we 
hoped you were wronged in this, because we thought much 
better of you than the facts warranted. 

Oh, this pains us very much. We must hear all around, 
“Hoeflich is a great drunkard/’ Is it possible? A man that 
knows the truth and confesses it, fallen so awfully! This we 
had not expected. We hoped that you would be salt in your 
neighborhood—a light and leader. Alas! it is to the contrary. 

My friend, you bring yourself into great calamity. You 
bring sorrow upon your family. Your children will despise, 
scorn you. But that is the least consideration. For a man to 
profess God with his mouth and to deny him with his works— 
that is awful. 0 Hoeflich, you will be lost. But that is not 
all. You hurt the cause of Christ; and besides strengthening 
the wicked in their ways, you entice others and become a 
partaker of their sins, and make yourself guilty of their blood, 
whereby you bring upon yourself an awful judgment. Trem¬ 
ble, and turn! You must either decide to go to hell or give up 
drinking. There is no other way; and this you know and 
believe. Hoeflich, 0 Hoeflich, turn quickly. Leave off; it 
is time. Give up drinking; otherwise God will give you up, 
and then, oh, woe! 

You ask, “Is there any help for me?” There can be; 
there must be; there is. Your strength is too feeble; but the 
power of the Almighty is sufficient. But you must give up 
strong drink. You must give it up entirely. And dare you 
hesitate? Is it not much better to suffer thirst in this world 


OTTERBEIN’S EXTANT PAPERS 


233 


than to thirst in hell through eternity? Oh, resolve to quit 
drinking. 

One thing I must tell you, Satan will not let you loose 
very easily. But you need not fear. The almighty Savior 
will help you. Venture upon him; he will sustain you. Pray, 
pray; call aloud; persevere. Tell your wife and children, tell 
your dear friends, to help you pray. 

Oh, how much better would it have been if you had stayed 
with your family in Baltimore. At the time when you were 
here this hellish spirit was yet bound. Oh that the Lord may 
have mercy upon you is my wish and prayer, for you and your 
house. I greet you and your family; also, Christina, Mary, 
Grimbel, Wahl, and others. 

Your friend, 

W. Otterbein. 

A small manuscript-volume of Latin sermons that was 
left by Mr. Otterbein in the parsonage is believed to belong 
to the period of his preparation for the ministry, or to the 
time of his ministry in Germany. The book was preserved 
until 1853, but cannot now be found. Prof. John Haywood, 
in 1851, examined the collection, and translated one of the 
sermons. This sermon was based upon II. Peter ii. 4-9, with 
special reference to the 9th verse. Its aim was edification. 
Mr. Otterbein's Latin scholarship is well attested. He read 
the Latin down to the time of his death with as much ease as 
his own vernacular. He was likewise thoroughly conversant 
with the Hebrew and Greek. He was also acquainted with 
the Dutch, and must have had some knowledge of the French. 

We have but one sermon sketch coming from Otterbein. 
It is the outline of a sermon preached by him at the conference 
of 1801. As Mr. Otterbein selected his texts with great judg¬ 
ment, the text used on that occasion will be quoted entire, 
in connection with the brief outline that has been handed 
down. His text was Jude twentieth to the twenty-fifth verse 
inclusive: 

20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your 
most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost. 

21. Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for 
the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 


234 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


22. And of some have compassion, making a difference. 

23. And others save with fear, pulling them out of the 
fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 

24. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, 
and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory 
with exceeding joy, 

25. To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and 
majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” 

The leading topics of this discourse were: 

1. The sanctity of the'ministerial office. 

2. The character of the men that should take upon them 
this office. They must be men of faith, of prayer and full of 
the Holy Ghost. 

3. The dut'es of the office. 

4. Its great responsibilities. 

With reference to this discourse of Otterbein, Newcomer 
wrote: “The force with which he pointed out the greatness, 
the importance, and the responsibility of the ministerial office 
will never be forgotten by me.” 

It is said that Mr. Otterbein possessed a large library. 
He certainly esteemed books. When the second volume of his 
brother's work (George Godfrey’s) on the Heidelberg Cate¬ 
chism was published, he had fifty copies brought to this coun¬ 
try. Of his books there yet remain a few at Baltimore. One 
of these is a history of the martyrs, published in 1571. The 
list begins with Abel and closes with an account of Melancthon. 
Another work is the Berleburg Bible-commentary on the Old 
Testament. This is a mystical work, but it contains much 
that is good. At Berleburg, where this commentary was pro¬ 
duced, John Daniel Otterbein served, in different capacities, 
for a number of years. Others of Mr. Otterbein’s books are 
preserved at different places. 

From the contents of this chapter it will be sufficiently 
evident that the services of Mr. Otterbein were not in the line 
of literature. His whole power was exerted immediately upon 
men and upon the features of the times. His life was a con¬ 
stant grapple with forces that were to be overcome and with 
souls that were to be won. 


CHAPTER XVII. 

OTTERBEIN’S LAST YEAR. 

Asbury’s Visit—Newcomer in Baltimore—Ordination of Newcomer, Hoff¬ 
man, and Schaffer—Dr. Harbaugh’s Views—Wm. Ryland—The Last 

Hour—The Last Words—The Funeral—Those Participating— 

His Age—His Tomb—His Congregation—His Will—Tributes 
of Asbury, Dr. B. Kurtz, Dr. Zacharias, and John Hildt— 

Henry Boehm’s Description—Pictures of Otterbein 
—His Life-Work—His Retrospect—His Vision 
of the Future—The Key to His Life—His 
Name Growing Brighter—Recent Words 
—His Answers to Asbury’s Questions— 

His Aim and Reward. 

(JTi^ARCH 22, 1813, Bishop Asbury came to Balti- 
| / more. In the evening he called upon Mr. Otter- 
(J v bein and remained over night with him. He 
made the following entry in his journal: "I gave 
an evening to the great Otterbein. I found him happy and 
placid in God. He says the commentators are mistaken— 
that the vials are yet to be poured out.” Almost every man 
that meets this wicked world face to face asks himself, What is 
to be the outcome? Some persons suddenly roused from deep 
slumber form untenable and pernicious theories as to the future. 
Yet at least a partial view of what is in reserve for our world, 
drawn in spirit and substance from the Scriptures, is important 
for all. Mr. Otterbein often turned to the Scriptures, and, by 
the aid of prophecy, sought to forecast the character of the 
times to come. Henry Boehm, who was with Bishop Asbury 
at Mr. Otterbein's, says, "This was an evening I shall ever 
remember. Two noble souls met, and their conversation was 
rich and full of instruction. They had met frequently before; 
this was their last interview on earth.” 

A few days after this interview, Christian Newcomer and 
Christian Crum visited Mr. Otterbein in Baltimore. June 19, 
Mr. Newcomer was again in Baltimore. He says: "Found 
Father Wm. Otterbein weak and feeble in body, but his mental 


235 


236 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


powers as strong as ever.” This statement ought to be an 
abundant answer to the statement made by some writers, 
that ‘'in the latter part of his life his judgment failed.” Mr 
Newcomer during his visit preached in Mr. Otterbein’s church, 
as also did Mr. Dashields, an Episcopal minister, of whom 
we shall hear more presently. 

From this time until October, Mr. Otterbein's health 
continued gradually to fail. Yet he was able, for the most of 
the time, to attend to his ministerial duties. He was sinking 
from old age. His fund of vitality was gone. To the weakness 
of old age there was added a distressing asthmatic affection. 
Not long before the first of October Rev. Frederick Schaffer, 
one of the fruits of Mr. Otterbein's ministry at Lancaster, 
“in a particularly providential way,” came to Baltimore, and 
from this time forward Mr. Otterbein was relieved from the 
work of preaching. The news of Mr. Otterbein's failing health 
was everywhere heard with sorrow by his brethren. Deep 
concern in regard to the future of the work begun, filled the 
hearts of the brethren in Ohio. It was everywhere desired 
that before Father Otterbein should depart he should give to 
the brethren raised up under him formal ordination by the 
laying on of hands. They had specifically received the priv¬ 
ilege to administer the sacraments. Along with Otterbein 
they had administered the sacrament of the Lord's supper at 
Baltimore and elsewhere. They had even officiated in the 
administering of this ordinance at Methodist meetings along 
with Methodist bishops. But the contempt that was by some 
heaped upon their ministerial functions would be still greater 
when Otterbein should be taken away. 

When news reached Joseph Hoffman, already so useful 
and subsequently so mighty in the ministry, that Father 
Otterbein was dangerously ill, he determined to visit Mr. New¬ 
comer, who lived ninety miles distant, and consult him as to 
the propriety of their going to Baltimore and receiving formal 
ordination before the departure of Father Otterbein. Mr. 
Newcomer consented to go, though the matter of receiving 
ordination does not seem to have so much concerned him. 
October 1, they arrived in Baltimore. The account of what 


OTTERBEIN'S LAST YEAR 


237 


followed will be given in Mr. Newcomer's words: “Old Father 
Otterbein is weak and feeble in body, but strong and vigorous 
in spirit, and full of hope of a blissful immortality and eternal 
life. He was greatly rejoiced at our arrival. He informed 
me that he had received a letter from the brethren in the 
West,* wherein he was requested to ordain me, by the laying 
on of hands, to the office of elder and preacher of the gospel, 
before his departure, adding, T have always considered myself 
too unworthy to perform this solemn injunction of the apostle, 
but now I perceive the necessity of doing so before I shall be 
removed.' He then inquired whether I had any objection to 
make, and if not, whether the present would not be a suitable 
time. I replied that I firmly believed solemn ordination to 
the ministry had been enjoined and practiced by the apostles; 
therefore, if, in his opinion, the performance of the act would 
be thought necessary and beneficial, I had no objection to 
make whatever, but would cheerfully consent—only one 
observation I wished to make; as Brothers Joseph Hoffman 
and Frederick Schaffer were present, that he should ordain 
them at the same time. To this he readily assented, and 
immediately appointed the following day for the performance 
of this solemn duty. 2. This afternoon the vestry and 
several other members of the church assembled at the house of 
Father Otterbein. The venerable man addressed us in so 
spiritual and powerful a manner that all beheld him with 
astonishment. It appeared as if he had received particular 
unction from above to perform this solemn act. After address¬ 
ing a throne of grace with great fervency for a blessing, he 
called upon Bro. Wm. Ryland, an elder of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, who had been invited for the purpose, to 
assist him in the ordination. We were accordingly ordained 
to the office of elders in the ministry, by the laying on of hands. 
John Hildt, a member of the vestry, had been appointed 
secretary. He executed certificates of ordination to each of 
us, in the German and English languages, which certificates 
were then signed by Father William Otterbein, and delivered 


♦According to a formal resolution adopted by the conference in Ohio. 



238 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


to each of us. At night we preached in the church. I lodged 
with Otterbein.” 

The following is a copy of one of these ordination certi¬ 
ficates: 


Know all men whom it may concern that Joseph Hoffman, this 2d 
day of October, 1813, in the presence of the subscribers, leaders of the 
congregation in Baltimore, by the Rev. William Otterbein, in conjunction 
with, and with the assistance of William Ryland, an elder of the Methodist 
society in Baltimore, by the laying on of hands, is duly and solemnly or¬ 
dained. We desire and pray that his labors in the vineyard of the Lord 
may prove a blessing to many souls. 

Given this 2d day of October, 1813. 

(Witness) JOHN HILDT, Secretary. 


WILLIAM BACKER. 

BALTZER SCHAEFFER. 

GOTTFRIED SUMWALT. 

JACOB SMITH. 



A True Copy. 


WILLIAM OTTERBEIN. 


Mr. Otterbein delivered his address to the candidates 
sitting in an arm-chair, to which it had been necessary to assist 
him. One point in his address was a solemn injunction against 
being precipitate in the ordinations that it would devolve upon 
them to confer. He had again to be assisted when he rose to 
his feet to place his hands on the heads of the candidates. 
Through the ordination of these three ministers, especially of 
Mr. Newcomer and Mr. Hoffman, both of whom served as 
bishops, ordination has been conveyed to several thousand 
ministers—to all that have been ordained by the bishops of 
the United Brethren Church or by persons who have been 
ordained by the bishops of the church.* 

The presence and assistance of Rev. Wm. Ryland, of the 
Methodist Church, recalls the presence and assistance of 
Mr. Otterbein at the consecration of Bishop Asbury. Con¬ 
cerning Mr. Ryland a few words will be in place. By birth 


*The case of persons ordained by Bishop Carter would be an exception. 



OTTERBEIN’S LAST YEAR 


239 


he was an Irishman. He became a traveling preacher in 1802 . 
He was five times elected chaplain of the United States senate. 
He was pronounced by the statesman Wm. Pinckney the 
greatest pulpit orator he had ever heard. General Jackson 
greatly admired him, and gave him a chaplain's commission in 
the United States navy. In this position he served for the 
last seventeen years of his life. He was a man of precious 
spirit. No more suitable man could have been chosen by 
Mr. Otterbein. 

Doctor Harbaugh's views as to Otterbein's seeing the 
necessity of giving "validity to an abnormal ministry" by 
ordination conferred at the last moment, as to his holding on 
to the religious movement, "not to organize it, but to prevent 
its organization," as to his "silently mourning" over mistakes 
made in "the heat of former enthusiasm," and so forth— 
these views, did they possess a grain of serious foundation, 
would be entitled to a careful consideration. His views and 
theories on these points, however, are the purest fiction. That 
Mr. Otterbein was acting cordially and positively in solemnly 
ordaining three of his brethren, was characteristic of the spirit 
of his life, and in full accord with all of his later acts. The 
reason for his not ordaining at an earlier time was his char¬ 
acteristic humility, and not a belief that it would be improper. 
Nor did the necessity for conveying formal ordination first, 
at this time, come into his mind. He said, "I have always 
considered myself too unworthy to perform this solemn injunc¬ 
tion of the apostle." 

The day following this ordination, it being Sunday, 
Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Newcomer preached in Mr. Otterbein's 
church, and Mr. Schaffer assisted them in administering the 
sacrament. "A great many persons came to the table of the 
Lord with contrite hearts and streaming eyes." The following 
day Mr. Newcomer and Mr. Hoffman left the city. Otterbein 
exhorted them to faithfulness, told them that God would be 
with them, and carry forward the good work through their 
instrumentality. His last words to them were, "Farewell. 
If any inquire after me, tell them I die in the faith I have 
preached." 


240 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


For nearly six weeks Mr. Otterbein continued slowly to 
fail. It now became evident that the last hour had come. 
Rev. Dr. Kurtz, of the Lutheran Church, offered up at his 
bedside the last vocal prayer, at the close of which Otterbein 
responded, “Amen, amen: it is finished.” His last quotation 
from scripture was, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant 
depart in peace according to thy word, for mine eyes have seen 
thy salvation.” It now appeared that he was on the verge 
of departing, but rallying once more he said slowly and dis¬ 
tinctly, “Jesus, Jesus—I die, but thou livest, and soon I shall 
live with thee.” Then, addressing his friends, he continued, 
“The conflict is over and past. I begin to feel an unspeakable 
fullness of love and peace divine. Lay my head upon my 
pillow, and be still.” Spayth adds, “Stillness reigned in the 
chamber of death,—no, not of death, the chariot of Israel had 
come. 'See/ said one, 'how sweet, how easy he breathes/ 
A smile, a fresh glow lighted up his countenance, and behold it 
was death. 

‘He taught us how to live, and, oh! too high 

A price of knowledge, taught us how to die.’ ” 

It is scarcely too much to say that in the long list of dying 
utterances of eminent saints nothing can be found more pro¬ 
foundly fitting or truly sublime than the dying words of Otter¬ 
bein. When the scaffolding of our earthly life is rudely struck 
by the hand of Death, there is no foundation of hope any¬ 
where, no principle of life anywhere, save in Jesus, who is the 
resurrection and the life. That he lives is the pledge of our 
resurrection, yea, the pledge that we shall not die. In Otter- 
bein’s death it seemed that eternity overlapped, beyond its 
wont, the shore pressed by aching hearts and tired feet. It is 
better to die under the hush of the Almighty than to be occu¬ 
pied to the last moment with cares and labors unwisely, per¬ 
haps perilously deferred. Otterbein died as he lived—with 
commanding composure and subdued greatness. 

His death took place at 10 p. m., on Wednesday, Novem¬ 
ber 17, 1813. The funeral services took place on Saturday 
morning. The body was carried into the church at a quarter 
before 10 o’clock. At 10 o’clock Rev. J. D. Kurtz, of the 


OTTERBEIN'S LAST YEAR 


241 


Lutheran church, Otterbein's friend and for twenty-seven 
years his co-laborer in Baltimore, preached a discourse in 
German from Matthew xx. 8—“Call the laborers and give 
them their hire.” It was a fitting text for one that had spent 
sixty-five years in the ministry. After the discourse in German 
by Doctor Kurtz, Rev. Wm. Ryland, of the Methodist Church, 
spoke in English. The members of the different churches in 
the city were in attendance in large numbers. Almost all of 
the ministers of the city were present. Rev. George Dashields, 
of the Episcopal Church, conducted the ceremony at the grave. 

Let us notice those that, doubtless by Mr. Otterbein's 
arrangement, took the leading part in these solemnities. Doc¬ 
tor Kurtz was the son of Rev. J. N. Kurtz, Otterbein's neigh¬ 
bor at Tulpehocken. His character is illustrated by a remark 
that he made. He was told that the Methodists were organiz¬ 
ing churches among German Lutherans. He replied, “And 
is it not better that they should go to heaven as Methodists, 
than to be neglected and overlooked as Lutherans?” He was one 
of the founders of the General Synod of the Lutheran Church, 
which has always been noted for its evangelical character. 

Rev. George Dashields, though an Episcopalian, often 
preached for Mr. Otterbein. He also to some extent made 
itinerant tours, and sometimes visited and cooperated with 
the German evangelists. His revival tendencies seem to have 
been disapproved, and to have excited opposition in the 
church to which he belonged. In 1816 he changed his church- 
relations. The character of Rev. Mr. Ryland has already 
been referred to. 

It will be observed that none of Mr. Otterbein's co¬ 
workers among the United Brethren took a part in the funeral 
services. Frederick Schaffer, though beloved by Otterbein 
and the congregation, could better take the place of a mourner. 
Christian Newcomer, Joseph Hoffman, Christian Crum, and 
Jacob Baulus were specially engaged in Pennsylvania. When 
Mr. Newcomer reached home and found a letter informing 
him of the death of Otterbein he wrote, “He is called to his 
everlasting home, where he rests from his labors, and his works 
will follow him.” No Reformed minister took part in the 


242 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


services. Rev. Christian L. Becker was still serving as pastor 
of the Reformed Church. 

When Bishop Asbury received the sad news of the death 
of his friend he exclaimed, “ Is Father Otterbein dead? Great 
and good man of God! An honor to his church and country. 
One of the greatest scholars and divines that ever came to 
America, or born in it. Alas, the chiefs of the Germans are 
gone to their rest and reward, taken from the evil to come.” 

At the time of his death he was eighty-seven years, five 
months, and fourteen days of age. He had been a minister 
sixty-five years, reckoning from the time he became a candi¬ 
date; or reckoning from his ordination, sixty-four years. He 
was buried in the yard by the side of the church, between the 
church and Conway Street, at the right of the entrance from 
the fstreet. A large marble^slab was placed flat upon the 
grave, and over this, supported by four square pillars at the 
corners, was placed a second slab. The inscription to his 
memory was on this second horizontal slab. In 1913 these 
slabs were removed and a suitable upright monument was 
placed at the head of his grave. 

After his decease his congregation continued to be served 
by Rev. Frederick Schaffer until the next meeting of the 
United Brethren conference, when a committee from the con¬ 
gregation made a full report to the conference of the facts 
connected with his death, and presented the request of the 
congregation that a minister be sent them by the conference. 
This was according to the wish of Otterbein. 

Mr. Otterbein’s liberality had been such as to leave little 
property to be disposed of by will. The only items in his will 
looking to his individual property are the following: "I desire 
that my just debts and funeral expenses may be paid as soon 
as may be after my decease. I devise and give to Miss 
Elizabeth Drucks, now living in my family, and as a testimony 
of my esteem for her, the sum of fifty dollars. I give, devise, 
and bequeath all the residue of my property, personal or 
mixed, to my friend Elizabeth Schwope, as a small but the 
only compensation in my power for her faithful services and 
uncommon attention to me for many years past/' 


OTTERBEIN’S LAST YEAR 


243 


In March, 1814, four months after the death of Otterbein, 
Mr. Asbury came to Baltimore to attend the session of the 
Baltimore Conference. By request of the conference, and 
certainly at the hearty desire of the stricken congregation, he 
delivered in Otterbein’s church a fitting discourse in memory 
of the departed. The following is the note that he made in 
his journal: “By request, I discoursed on the character of the 
angel of the church of Philadelphia, in allusion to William 
Otterbein, the holy, the great Otterbein, whose funeral dis¬ 
course it was intended to be. Solemnity marked the silent 
meeting in the German church, where were assembled the 
members of our conference and many of the clergy of the city. 
Forty years have I known the retiring modesty of this man of 
God, towering majestic above his fellows, in learning, wisdom, 
and grace, yet seeking to be known only to God and the people 
of God.” 

A few additional testimonies, coming from widely-con¬ 
trasted sources, will now be given. The following is from 
Dr. Benjamin Kurtz of the Lutheran Church: “Otterbein, 
that true and living witness, whose memory I hold dear, and 
cherish in my heart of hearts, was still laboring in faith and 
patience, and v/ith great success, when I commenced preaching 
the gospel; but a short time before my arrival in Baltimore, the 
Master had called him home. The pious part of the community 
still delighted in calling to mind his unctious sermons, his holy 
walk and conversation, and his wonderful success in winning- 
sinners from the error of their ways, as well as in encouraging 
the weak and building up believers. My uncle, Rev. J. D. Kurtz, 
a true man of God, was a co-laborer of the sainted Otterbein, 
on terms of intimacy with him, and preached his funeral 
sermon. He often spoke to me about him, and always indi¬ 
cated the profound regard and ardent affection he entertained 
for him. In Washington County, Maryland, and in adjacent 
parts of Virginia (where I spent the first sixteen years of my 
ministry), Otterbein was well known. He frequently visited 
that section, and everywhere I met with living seals of his 
ministry. The devotion and enthusiasm with which those 
who had been converted under his preaching spoke of his 


244 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


power in the pulpit, of his spirit and holy conversation in 
personal intercourse, and of his untiring labors to lead sinners 
to Christ, was really refreshing, and filled my heart with love 
and admiration for that chosen and distinguished servant of 
the Lord. I knew a number of the early preachers that had 
been converted by Otterbein’s instrumentality, and preached 
in company with some of them, on funeral and other occasions. 
They were all men of God, and though not learned, like Otter- 
bein (who was a scholar as well as a saint), they were faithful, 
devoted, and eminently useful. If ever there was a true 
revival-preacher, Otterbein was one.” 

Doctor Zacharias, the pastor of the Reformed church at 
Frederick, Maryland, wrote in 1847 the following: “Mr. Ot¬ 
terbein was a ripe scholar, and a devoted and pious man, who 
lived in God and God in him. By his agency a new life was 
brought into the church, at first as a mustard-seed, but later 
as a tree whose branches afforded a grateful resting-place to 
many. * * * He was respected and revered even by those 
who disapproved of his measures, and throughout life his 
character stood unsullied by a single stain.” 

Before his toilsome career was brought to a close, his 
devotion to his life-work, his sacrifices, and manifold labors 
had won a recognition from even his opponents. He was 
blessed by the poor whose sad condition he had relieved from 
some of its shadows, and about him gathered with their kindly 
presence and pure-hearted appreciation, the choicest spirits 
of the times. His fidelity had been put to the severest test, 
but at the last it was suitably recognized and rewarded. 

The breadth of his sympathy and practical philanthropy 
is shown by the fact that in 1803 he served with Bishop Carroll 
of the Catholic Church and Rev. J. D. Kurtz of the Lutheran 
Church with six others as trustees of a Female Charity School 
of the County of Baltimore. 

Mr. John Hildt’s account of his first acquaintance with 
Mr. Otterbein about 1800, has such tenderness and life-likeness 
that it will be inserted in full: “Nearly half a century has 
passed since I became acquainted with Mr. Otterbein; and 
never will I forget the impression made upon my mind when I 


OTTERBEIN’S LAST YEAR 


245 


first saw and heard him. It was on Good Friday, in the fore¬ 
noon, when, by the persuasion of a friend, I entered the church 
where he officiated. A venerable, portly old man, above six 
feet in height, erect in posture, apparently about seventy-five 
years of age, stood before me. He had a remarkably high and 
prominent forehead. Gray hair fell smooth down both sides 
of his head, on his temples. His eyes were large, blue, and 
piercing, and sparkled with the fire of love that warmed his 
heart. In his appearance and manners there was nothing 
repulsive, but all was attractive, and calculated to command 
the most profound attention and reverence. He opened his 
lips in prayer to Jehovah. Oh, what a voice!—what a prayer! 
Every word thrilled my heart. I had heard many prayers, but 
never before one like this. The words of his text were these: 
Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and 
to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and 
remission of sins should be preached in his name, among all 
nations, beginning at Jerusalem/ As he proceeded in the 
elucidation of the text and in the application, it seemed that 
every word was exactly adapted to my case, and intended for 
me. Every sentence smote me. A tremor at length seized 
on my whole frame; tears streamed from my eyes; and, utterly 
unable to restrain myself, I cried aloud. 

“On the following Sabbath I again went to Mr. O/s 
church, when he took special notice of the young stranger, and 
gave me an invitation to visit him on the next day. I complied 
with the friendly request, with some reluctance, it is true, but 
was received with such unaffected tenderness and love, and 
addressed with so much solicitude for my salvation, that my 
heart was won.” 

The following is the description of his person by Henry 
Boehm, as he appeared at the conference of 1800: “In person 
he was tall, being six feet high, with a noble frame, and a 
commanding appearance. He had a thoughtful, open counte¬ 
nance, full of benignity, and a dark-bluish eye that was very 
expressive. In reading the lesson he used spectacles, which 
he would take off and hold in his left hand while speaking. He 


246 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


had a high forehead, a double chin with a beautiful dimple in 
the center. His locks were gray, his dress parsonic.” 

There are three independent pictures of him. The one 
representing him in a study-cap was ever tenderly loved by 
those that witnessed the last years of his ministry. The one 
usually seen in lithograph form represents him in middle life. 
The third picture was made in 1810 for Peter Hoffman, one 
of his elders. This picture has recently been secured for the 
Church at a cost of several hundred dollars. Aside from 
these three pictures, there is a photograph of a wax bust, giv¬ 
ing a profile view. Ail of the pictures substantially agree, the 
differences resulting from difference in age, position, or dress. 

The work of Mr. Otterbein has already been presented in 
its various phases and outlines. This is not the place to en¬ 
large upon the importance and greatness of the work that was 
put in motion by him. Let it suffice to say that up to the time 
of his death, fully one hundred preachers had been raised up 
and introduced into the work of preaching a living gospel, 
and that the movement had already extended over large parts 
of several great states, finding its way many hundred miles 
beyond the field of Mr. Otterbein's personal labors. • That he 
stood at the head of this great work, as far as the same was 
brought under a common form, no one can doubt. 

It is a fact not to be ignored that in his last years many 
troubles came to his heart in view of the position and course 
that he had been led to take. The fact that he stood in his old 
age sundered from dear and venerable historic associations 
wrung from him the deepest anguish that it is possible for the 
heart to feel. His sorrow was not the bitterness of repentance 
over mistakes into which he had been precipitated. His 
sorrow was not over the outcome of his course and efforts, but 
over the condition of things that had led him, without his 
planning, into a new and untried way. There is no evidence 
of even a momentary faltering in his attachment to those that 
had been led into the revival movement by him, and to the 
cause to which they with himself stood committed; but how 
gladly would he have embraced also all that in earlier times had 
stood to him as brethren. 


OTTERBEIN'S LAST YEAR 


247 


In the forced seclusion of his last years he had to fight no 
ordinary battles. He asked in great anxiety, “Will the work 
stand, and endure the fiery test?” Within the last year of his 
life he sent for Christian Newcomer and Jacob Baulus, that he 
might see them once more, and that he might converse with 
them on the state of religion and the interests of the work 
that lay so near his heart. In conversation with them he said, 
“The Lord has been pleased graciously to satisfy me fully 
that the work will abide.” 

What—as a final judgment—was the chief factor in Mr. 
Otterbein’s life, the key to his character and career? It was 
not a form of philosophy; it was not a type of theology; it was 
not enthusiasm. The true explanation of his devoted life and 
sustained labors is to be found in his deep perception of the 
moral contrasts presented in the Scriptures. This was the 
basis; other things rested upon his foundation. He saw men 
as lost, and, by the widest contrast imaginable, beheld them 
redeemed. He appreciated the unspeakable difference between 
a soul unrenewed and a soul renewed. The difference was one 
of quality, fundamental character—not one of moral shading. 
Others were thinking of educating a new man out of the old 
man; he believed in nothing short of a new creature in Christ. 
By the aid of the Scriptures he read moral truth in its primitive 
courses. He saw that the difference between unbelievers and 
Christians must be carried, on the part of Christians, to a 
joyful and assured knowledge of salvation. He regarded this 
as necessary not only for the proper joy and comfort of be¬ 
lievers, but also as necessary for the triumphs of the church. 
To deny the possibility of this assurance was to go against the 
Scriptures, and to cast away the essential consistency of 
Christianity. Why should not so great a change as that from 
death unto life, from the disfavor to the favor of God, have a 
witness in man’s inmost experience? From such preceptions 
there could be but one result. Could any man have this deep 
and living view of moral qualities and conditions—qualities 
and conditions so boldly presented and strikingly contrasted 
in the Scriptures—and remain an ordinary Christian, or an 
ordinary force in the work of saving men? 


248 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


His convictions were deep and powerful, active and un¬ 
yielding. While he startled and moved others, he himself 
was deliberate and composed. He had both the courage and 
the confidence of his convictions, and could therefore afford, 
when outward display would avail nothing, to possess his soul 
in peace; and when in action, all of his power could be turned, 
with no wasting upon himself, directly upon the work to be 
done. 

Mr. Otterbein’s place in history is becoming more clear 
and his name more honored as the years go by. The ideas that 
he sought to advance are now firmly enthroned in the heart 
of Christians everywhere. The ideas of a conscious experience 
of the grace of God, a spiritual church-membership, a con¬ 
verted ministry, and the social element in religious life, are no 
longer the symbols of divisions in the church. But the world 
does not forget those that won for these ideas their recognized 
place. Revivals, the promotion of which required in him a 
martyr-spirit, have now an open field and the authority of 
multitudes of the greatest names. 

A bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church South 
recently said, “If Otterbein had preached in the English lan¬ 
guage he would have headed the general evangelical movement 
in this country.” The remark contemplates, it may be said, 
more his fitness and position in time, than his disposition 
toward leadership. Rev. George Lansing Taylor, a Methodist 
divine, in an ode written in 1875, speaks of Otterbein as— 
“Scholar, apostle, and saint, by Asbury loved as a brother; 

Sage in counsel, and mighty in prayer as Elijah on Carmel; 

Founder and head of a people, a godly, fraternal communion.” 

No fitter conclusion can be given to this attempt to trace 
the life of Mr. Otterbein than by giving the list of questions 
and answers, already referred to as forming a part of the 
Hollingsworth article. The questions were submitted by 
Bishop Asbury, and the answers were undoubtedly written by 
Mr. Otterbein's own hand. The answers were given in 1812. 
They begin with his home in Germany and come down to the 
very close of his life. The answers are strikingly and admirably 
characteristic, and to one that has already obtained some 


OTTERBEIN'S LAST YEAR 


249 


knowledge of Otterbein’s life they need no comment. The 
following is the list: 

To the Rev. William Otterbein— 

Sir: —Where were you born? 

Answer. In Nassau-Dillenburg, in Germany. 

Question. How many years had you lived in your native 
land? 

Ans. Twenty-six years. 

Ques. How many years have you resided in America? 

Ans. Sixty years the coming August. 

Ques. Where were you educated? 

Ans. In Herborn in an academy. 

Ques What languages and sciences were you taught? 

Ans. Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Philosophy, and Divinity. 

Ques. In what order were you set apart for the ministry? 

Ans. The Presbyterian form and order. 

Ques. What ministers assisted in your ordination? 

Ans. Schramm and Klingelhoefer. 

Ques. Where have you had charge of congregations in 
America? 

Ans. First in Lancaster, in Tulpehocken, in Frederick- 
town, in Maryland, in Little York, in Pennsylvania, and in 
Baltimore. 

Ques In what part of the United States have you 
frequently traveled in the prosecution of your ministerial labors? 

Ans. In Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. 

Ques. How many years of your life, since you came to 
this continent, were you in a great measure an itinerant? 

Ans. The chief of the time since my coming but more 
largely since my coming to Baltimore. 

Ques. By what means were you brought to the gospel of 
God and our Savior? 

Ans. By degrees was I brought to the knowledge of the 
truth while in Lancaster. 

Ques. Have you unshaken confidence in God, through 
Christ, of your justification, sanctification, and sure hope of 
glorification? 

Ans. The Lord has been good to me, and no doubt re¬ 
mains in my mind but he will be good; and I can now praise 
him for the hope of a better life. 

Ques. Have you ever kept any account of the seals of 
your ministry? 

Ans. None. 

Ques. Have you ever kept any account of the members in 
the society of the United Brethren? 


250 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Ans. Only what are in Baltimore. 

Ques. Have you taken any account of the brethren in¬ 
troduced into the ministry immediately by yourself, and sent 
out by you? Can you give the names of the living and the 
dead? 

Ans. Henry Weidner, Henry Baker, Simon Herre, in 
Virginia: these are gone to their reward. Newcomer can give 
the names of the living. 

Ques. What ministerial brethren, who have been your 
helpers, can you speak of with pleasure, and whose names are 
precious? 

Ans. Geeting Weidner, Newcomer and others. 

Ques. What is your mind concerning John Wesley, and 
the order of Methodists in America? 

Ans. I think highly of John Wesley. I think well of 
the Methodists in Amer ca. 

Ques. What are your views of the present state of the 
church of Christ in Europe and America, and of prophecy? 

Ans. In continental Europe the church has lost, in a 
great degree, the light of truth. In England and America the 
light still shines. Prophecy is hastening to its accomplishment. 

Ques. Will you give any commandment concerning your 
bones, and the memoirs of your life? Your children in Christ 
will not suffer you to die unnoticed. 

No answer was returned to the last question. This 
blank, however, was itself truly expressive of his character. 

The immortality that he sought he soon afterward gained 
in the unseen realm. Yet he lives in the memories of the good 
of earth. May he have in this world, too, a truer immortality 
than that of a name embalmed in memory,—even that of living 
in the increased endeavors of many thousands, who, clothed 
with his spirit, shall carry forward the work that he so nobly 
began. For this triple immortality—in heaven, in grateful 
memory, and in an increasing force for good—who would not 
suffer, toil, and die? Yet in the life of Otterbein, an ulterior 
object, something beyond any personal end to be gained, is to 
be discerned, if we would understand his unvarying course, 
and the proportioned greatness of his character. We must 
discern as his constant aim the glory of God, and the salvation 
of undying souls. 


Part Second 

CHURCH CHARACTER ASSUMED; 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH 













CHAPTER I. 

THE SCOPE OF THE EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT 

Pennsylvania Germans—Testimony from Outside Sources—Asbury’s 
Description—Asbury’s Statistics—Losses—Testimony from 
Within the Church—Sketch from Earliest Dis¬ 
ciplines—Spirit of the Founders. 

r HE scope of the evangelical movement among the 
Germans, together with the beginnings of church 
character, may be noticed a little more closely. We 
shall here be more especially concerned with the 
period from 1800, when the first regular annual conference 
met, to 1815, when the first General Conference met. The 
field occupied and the number or proportion of the German 
population must enter largely into our survey. The term'to 
commence with and almost to end with is ""Pennsylvania 
German." The German population in Pennsylvania already 
has been referred to. As the first generation of these'newcomers 
was being succeeded by a second and a third, and asHhe in¬ 
fluence of new surroundings and associations became more and 
more felt, the Germans of Pennsylvania became more and 
more a distinctly marked class as distinguished from the Ger¬ 
mans more recently arriving. From Pennsylvania, the Ger¬ 
mans spread down over parts of Maryland. Comparatively 
few Germans came to the port of Baltimore. From Pennsyl¬ 
vania and Maryland, they went in large numbers into the 
Shenandoah Valley in Virginia, called in early days, ""New 
Virginia." For more than a hundred years after the first 
settlement in Virginia in 1607, no white man crossed the 
mountains to look into this famous valley. It was reserved in 
large part for occupancy by the Germans from Pennsylvania. 
From the more early settled parts of Pennsylvania, the Ger¬ 
mans spread to the western part of that State, and then, along 
with other elements of the population, formed a considerable 
portion of the tide of immigrants pouring into Ohio, Kentucky, 


253 


254 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


and Indiana, spoken of as the “Western Country.” When the 
German evangelists went into any of these parts, they found 
Pennsylvania families, and often relatives and acquaintances, 
and almost invariably open doors. Even in going to Canada, 
they followed the track of the German immigrant, and noted 
the finding of relatives and friends. Here then was the public, 
largely homogeneous, and more or less separated by language 
and customs from other portions of the population, to which the 
pioneer German preachers must address themselves. It is not 
necessary to dwell on the special religious needs of the people. 
Of the difficulty of the work, Otterbein gave this testimony: 
“It is true, brethren, the German work is a hard work; yet, 
faint not, and in due season you shall reap. The Lord has 
greatly blessed our labors and stood by us.” In the light of 
the foregoing, our eyes get a vision of the early field as referred 
to in the rules of Otterbein’s Baltimore church, adopted in 
1785, wherein reference is made to the “societies in Pennsyl¬ 
vania, Maryland, and Virginia under the superintendence of 
William Otterbein.” 

In getting a fuller view of the period named, we will look 
first to sources outside of the Church, and then to accounts 
given within the Church. The fullest testimony from without 
the Church naturally comes from within the Methodist Church, 
as the evangelical labors carried forward by the two organi¬ 
zations were parallel, and often overlapping and intertwined. 
No one outside of the religious movement among the Germans 
was better acquainted with it and more sympathetic toward it 
than Bishop Asbury. Besides, he was anxious that a record of 
the same should be handed down. 

In the spring of 1811, Henry Boehm, the son of Martin 
Boehm, being at the time the traveling companion of Bishop 
Asbury, submitted a list of questions to Martin Boehm, his 
father, concerning his life, and took down in writing the 
answers to the same. At about the same time, Bishop Asbury 
submitted a list of questions to Otterbein in relation to his life. 
These lists, with the answers thereto, were preserved among 
Bishop Asbury’s papers. The account in regard to Martin 
Boehm already has been referred to, and the account in regard 


SCOPE OF EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT 255 


to Otterbein has been given fully. A more comprehensive 
statement as to the religious movement among the Germans 
was made in a sermon which Bishop Asbury preached in Boehm 
Chapel in 1812, in commemoration of the life of Martin Boehm. 
Bishop Asbury requested Francis Hollingsworth, the trans¬ 
criber of his Journal, to write, on the basis of documents that 
he would supply him, an account of the work among the 
Germans. All the material that Hollingsworth was able to 
find consisted of the three documents referred to above—the 
list of questions with answers submitted to Boehm, the similar 
list with answers submitted to Otterbein, and the account 
given in the memorial sermon on Boehm. These documents 
were published in the Methodist Magazine of June, 1823, “with 
the alteration and substitution of a few sentences and words/' 
and are known as the “Hollingsworth papers." Hollingsworth 
deplored the fact that he had no personal knowledge of the 
German work, and his inability to secure adequate informa¬ 
tion. Notwithstanding the unfavorable circumstances under 
which the documents were produced, they have great value 
because of their contemporary character. 

The document from which an extended quotation now 
will be made is from the sermon preached April 5, 1812, by 
Bishop Asbury on the occasion of the death of Martin Boehm, 
which occurred the 23rd of the preceding month. After pro¬ 
nouncing a noble eulogy on Martin Boehm, he spoke more 
generally of the German work as follows: 

William Otterbein was regularly ordained to the ministry 
in the German Presbyterian Church [German Reformed]. He 
is one of the best scholars and the greatest divines in America. 
Why then is he not where he began? He was irregular. Alas 
for us, the zealous are necessarily so to those whose cry has 
been, “Put me into the priests' office, that I may eat a morsel 
of bread." Osterwald has observed, “Hell is paved with the 
skulls of unfaithful ministers." Such was not Boehm. Such is 
not Otterbein; and now his sun of life is setting in brightness: 
behold the saint of God leaning upon his staff, waiting for the 
chariots of Israel! 

I pause here to indulge in reflections upon the past. 
Why was the German reformation in the middle States, that 
sprang up with Boehm, Otterbein, and their helpers, not more 


256 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


perfect? Was money, was labor made a consideration with 
these primitive men? No; they wanted not the one and 
heeded not the other. They all had had church membership, 
as Presbyterians, [German Reformed] Lutherans, Moravians, 
Dunkers, Mennonites. The spiritual men of these societies 
generally united with the reformers, but they brought along 
with them the formalities, superstitions, and peculiar opinions 
of religious education. There was no master-spirit to rise up 
and organize and lead them. Some of the ministers located, 
and only added to their charge partial traveling labors; and 
all were independent. It remains to be proved whether a 
reformation, in any country, or under any circumstances, can 
be perpetuated without a well-directed itinerancy. But these 
faithful men of God were not the less zealous in declaring the 
truth because they failed to erect a church government. This 
was wished for by many; and among the first, perhaps, to 
discover the necessity of discipline and order, was Benedict 
Schwope, of Pipe creek, Frederick county; he became Otter- 
bein's prompter as early as 1772, and called upon him to 
translate the general rules of the Methodists, and explain to 
their German brethren, wandering as sheep without a shepherd, 
their nature, design, and efficacy. Otterbein, one of the wisest 
and best of men, could only approve; when urged to put him¬ 
self forward as a leader, his great modesty and diffidence of 
himself forbade his acceptance of so high a trust. His journeys, 
nevertheless, were long, his visits frequent, and his labors 
constant; so that, after he came to Baltimore, he might be 
called a traveling preacher until age and infirmities compelled 
him to be still. Surely, I should not forget his helpers. I may 
mention once more Benedict Schwope; he removed to Kentucky 
and preached until near his death at eighty years of age. 
George Adam Geeting, a native of Germany, has been a most 
acceptable man in the work; he still lives near Sharpsburg, in 
Maryland. Christian Newcomer, near Hagerstown, in Mary¬ 
land, has labored and traveled many years. His heart’s 
desire always has been to effect a union between his German 
brethren and the Methodists. Are there many that fear God 
who have passed by his house and have not heard of or wit¬ 
nessed the piety and hospitality of these Newcomers? Worthy 
people! 

I will not forget Abraham Traxall, now in the west of 
Pennsylvania; a most acceptable preacher of method and 
energy. Henry and Christian Crum, twin-brothers born, 
and twin-souls in zeal and experience; these were holy, good 
men, and members of both societies. John Hersay, formerly 


SCOPE OF EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT 257 


a Mennonist; an Israelite; he is gone to rest. Abraham and 
Christian Hersay, occasional itinerants, good men; busy and 
zealous. David Snyder, possessing gifts to make himself 
useful. Niesch Wanger, a good man and good preacher. Most 
of these men were natives of Pennsylvania. May I name 
Leonard Harburgh, once famous, gifted, laborous, useful? He 
is now only a great mechanic, alas! The flame of German zeal 
has moved westward with emigration. In Ohio, we have 
Andrew Teller, and Benedem, men of God, intrusted with a 
weighty charge, subjecting them to great labors. But our 
German fathers have lost many of their spiritual children. 
Some have led away disciples after them, and established 
independent churches; some have returned whence they or 
their fathers came; and some have joined the Dutch Baptists. 
Our German reformers have left no journal or record, that I 
have seen or heard of, by which we might learn the extent of 
their labors; but from Tennessee, where the excellent Baker 
labored and died, through Virginia and Maryland, into Penn¬ 
sylvania, as far eastward as Bucks and Berks counties, the 
effects of their ministry were happily seen and felt. We feel 
ourselves at liberty to believe that these German heralds of 
grace congregated one hundred thousand souls; that they have 
had twenty thousand in fellowship and communion, and one 
hundred zealous and acceptable preachers.* 

Asbury’s account is not introduced for the purpose of 
criticizing it, but for the sake of the information it contains. 
Yet, in order that it be of real service, the limitations under 
which it was written must be recognized, and any proper 
qualifications from other sources allowed their place. Asbury 
was not aware that minutes were kept of annual conference 
proceedings, and that progress was being made in the forma¬ 
tion of a Discipline. The formal Discipline, however, was not 
submitted for adoption until two years later. As in Luther’s 
time the German’s were impatient of putting their necks under 
a yoke, so in this case the Germans were not favorably un- 
clined to a formal discipline. The union referred to by Asbury 
was an understanding and agreement as to the mutual use of 
churches and places of meeting, and the priveleges of class 
meetings. Sometimes the thought of union may have gone 
further and included the idea of a single general organization. 

♦Bangs' History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, published in 1839, Vol. II, pp. 
371-374. 



258 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The Methodists had a few preachers that preached in German 
on occasion, along with their English preaching, but the 
Methodist leaders, believing that the use of the German lan¬ 
guage would be of short duration, declined to recognize or 
provide for anything distinctive along German lines. The 
Methodists might have incorporated the Albright movement 
entire if they had been willing to recognize German conferences. 
They likewise held in little esteem the semi-local character 
of the ministry of the United Brethren. Also, the fact that the 
United Brethren ministers generally were men with families 
stood in the way of a close union. Because of the larger cost 
of support for married ministers, and because of limitations 
on their range of work, the Methodists preferred unmarried 
men for their ministry. Asbury was a bachelor. In 1782, out 
of eighty ministers, seventy-one were bachelors. The spelling 
of names, as Traxall for Drachsel or Troxel, Hersay for Her- 
shey, and Teller for Zeller has been left as it was given. We 
may pause and give attention to the numbers named by Asbury 
in his concluding paragraph, as these numbers sometimes are 
used as the beginning of United Brethren statistics. 

From the beginning of the religious movement among 
the Germans to the time when Asbury wrote, a roll of one 
hundred preachers, the number named by Asbury, can be 
made up. Doubtless, there was a considerable number of 
preachers whose names have not been handed down. The 
number of hearers in the more or less settled congregations 
may well have exceeded the one hundred thousand named by 
Asbury. 

As to the twenty thousand members, were there this 
number, and, if so, why should there not have been more? 
And why was there later surely a smaller number? It is easy 
to believe that the number twenty thousand is not too high 
for the adherents or communicants in connection with the 
religious movement among the Germans. In the early period, 
those wishing to become members of the society, or societies, 
could do so without withdrawing from the churches to which 
they belonged. It was the same with the Methodists at a 
corresponding stage. The earliest Methodist historian uses 


SCOPE OF EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT 259 


the language: '‘We were only a religious society and not a 
church, and any members of any church who would conform 
to our rules and meet in a class had liberty to continue in their 
own church/' Thus, it was easy for the number of members to 
be augmented, especially in view of the new experience and 
warm fellowship that came to exist. It is easy to see that old 
attachments readily might reassert themselves, or that those 
who once had broken away from old attachments might use 
their independency by uniting with some other society or 
church. Thus, numbers might be reduced as rapidly as they 
had increased. The greatest losses from the United Brethren 
were to the Methodists. An example taken from Quinn's 
Journal already has been given. Another example represents 
conditions of the Methodist church, on Frederick Circuit, 
Maryland, in 1804. Robert R. Roberts, afterward bishop, 
was the preacher in charge. His biographer, after speaking of 
the “numerous followers of Otterbein" on the circuit, says: 
“They were a very devoted people, and had good meetings. 
As they were not then organized into a church, he was desirous 
that they should be, and thought they had better join the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. He conversed with them on the 
subject, and they appeared willing to do so. On his next 
round, he proposed to admit such as wished to unite, when 
about thirty accepted of his proposition. Among the number 
were three preachers. This step gave offense to some of their 
friends, and the result was that several of those who had joined 
withdrew shortly afterward, and among them two of the 
preachers, the other preacher, John Everhart, remaining in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church." While many preachers paved 
the way for their members to pass over into the Methodist 
Church, there were other persons, both preachers and laymen, 
who opposed this tendency. 

The Methodists were forty years getting a firm hold in 
Middletown, Maryland, and in 1808 Asbury, speaking of 
Hagerstown, wrote: “Our German Brethren of Otterbein's 
have shouldered us out, but have failed to establish them¬ 
selves." 


260 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Not many United Brethren preachers entered the regular 
ministry of the Methodist Church. Some preachers, like Henry 
Boehm, were drawn into the ministry of the Methodist Church 
when they saw the strong organization, great success, and wide 
prospects of the Methodist Church. Some have given Lorenz 
or Lawrence Eberhart (or Everhart), at whose house near 
Middletown the conference of 1806 was held, as an example, 
but he was present at the United Brethren conferences down 
to 1812, at which time he was given work as a preacher. John 
Eberhart, a pioneer preacher in Iowa, is said to have been 
his son. Lorenz Eberhart was a hero of the Revolution. At 
the battle of Cowpens, he saved the life of the colonel com¬ 
manding, and at the battle of Brandywine assisted in carrying 
the wounded Lafayette a distance of two miles to a place of 
safety. The change constantly going on from the use of the 
German to the use of the English language, and the lack of 
English preachers, fully account for a certain shrinkage in the 
number of members. It is to be feared that, by giving atten¬ 
tion to unfavorable or limiting features, we may lose our en¬ 
thusiasm for the really marvellous work that it is our business 
to trace. The fact that the Church triumphed over such ob¬ 
stacles is the strongest testimony to its vitality, and testimony 
likewise to its providential direction and support. 

We may now turn to testimony from within the Church 
as to the beginning and spread of the movement ultimating in 
the Church of the United Brethren in Christ. Here we have 
the advantage of testimony that was almost contemporaneous 
with the events, and has the authority of intimate and actual 
knowledge. It is the account of the origin of the Church 
given in the first published Disciplines of the Church, repre¬ 
senting the first and second General Conferences, which met 
in 1815 and 1817. The account has been retained substantially 
in every Discipline published since. Though it thus is easily 
accessible, it should be included here. It is given here from 
the Discipline that bears the imprint of 1819. The General 
Conference of 1817 ordered three hundred Disciplines printed 
in German and one hundred in English. The English transla¬ 
tion of the Discipline did not appear until 1819, and then it 


SCOPE OF EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT 261 


appeared with pages facing the pages containing the German 
Discipline. Both are somewhat fuller than the German Dis¬ 
ciplines of 1815 and 1817. However, the only significant 
change or addition in the historical sketch here given, as 
compared with the sketch given in the Discipline of 1815, is 
the addition of an account of the conferences of 1789 and 1791, 
and a list of the names of members of the conference of 1800. 
As being the translation made by the framers of the first 
Disciplines, and as being the basis of subsequent Disciplines, 
it is well to make use of the same as the original testimony 
from within the Church. Spayth was one of the secretaries 
of the General Conference of 1815, and was secretary of the 
General Conference of 1817, and the work of bringing out the 
Discipline bearing the date of 1819 doubtless was his. The 
following is the chief part of the historical sketch: 

In the century last past it pleased the Lord our God, to 
awaken persons in different parts of the world, who should 
raise up the Christian religion from its fallen state, and preach 
the gospel of Christ crucified in its purity. 

At this time, the Lord in mercy remembered the Germans 
in America, who, living scattered in this extensive country 
had but seldom an opportunity to hear the gospel of a crucified 
Savior preached to them in their native language. 

Amongst others, he raised up an Otterbein, a Boehm, 
and a Guething, armed them with spirit, grace, and strength 
to labor in his neglected vineyard, and call, also, amongst the 
Germans in America, sinners to repentance. These men 
obeyed the call of their Lord and Master; their labours were 
blessed; they established in many places excellent societies, 
and led many a precious soul to Jesus Christ. Their sphere 
of action spread itself more and more, so that they found it 
necessary to look about for more fellow labourers in the vine¬ 
yard; for the harvest was great, and the labourers but few. 
The Lord called others, who also were willing to devote their 
strength to his service; such, then, were accepted by one or 
the other of the preachers as fellow labourers. 

The number of members of the society, in the different 
parts of the country, continued from time to time to increase, 
and the gracious work spread itself through the States of 
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. Great meetings were 
appointed and held annually several times; when, on such 
occasions, Otterbein would hold particular conversations with 


262 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the preachers then present; represent to them the importance 
of the ministry, and the necessity of their utmost endeavors to 
save souls. At one of these conversations, it was resolved to 
hold a conference of all the preachers, in order to take into con¬ 
sideration how, and in what manner they might be most useful. 

The first conference was accordingly held in Baltimore, 
in the year 1789. There were present: 

William Otterbein Adam Lehman 

Martin Boehm John Ernst 

George Adam Guething Henry Weidener 
Christian Newcomer 

The second conference was held in York county, in 
Paradise township, at the house of Brother Spangler, in the 
year 1791, where there were present the following persons, viz: 
William Otterbein John Ernst 

Martin Boehm John G. Pfrimmer 

George Adam Guething John Neidig 
Christian Newcomer Benedict Sander 
Adam Lehman 

And after mature deliberation, how they might labour 
most usefully in the vineyard of the Lord, they again appointed 
such as fellow labourers, of whom they had cause to believe 
that they had experienced true religion in their own souls. 

In the meantime, the number of members continued to 
increase more and more; the preachers therefore were obliged 
to appoint an annual conference, in order to unite themselves 
more closely, and labour most usefully to one common end; 
for some were Presbyterians, or church Reformed, some were 
Lutherans, others Mennonites, and yet others were Methodists. 
They, therefore, appointed a conference to be held the 25th 
of September, 1800, in Frederick county, Maryland, at the 
house of Brother Frederick Kemp. There were present as 
follows: 

William Otterbein Christian Crum 

Martin Boehm Henry Crum 

George Adam Guething John Hershey 
Christian Newcomer Jacob Geisinger 

Adam Lehman Henry Boehm 

Abraham Dracksel Dietrick Aurauf 

John George Pfrimmer 

They there united themselves into a society, which bears 
the name of ‘‘The United Brethren in Christ,” and elected 
William Otterbein and Martin Boehm, as superintendents or 
bishops, and agreed that each of them should be at liberty to 


SCOPE OF EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT 263 

baptize in such manner as should best accord with his con¬ 
viction. 

From this time forth, the society increased still more; 
preachers were appointed, who travelled continually (because 
the number of preaching places could in no other wise be 
attended) and the work spread itself into the States of Ohio 
and Kentucky. It became necessary therefore to appoint a 
conference in the State of Ohio, because it was conceived too 
laborious for the preachers, who labored in those States, to 
travel such a distance annually to the conference. 

In the meantime, Brothers Boehm and Guething died, 
and Brother Otterbein desired that another Bishop should be 
elected (because infirmity and age would not permit him to 
superintend any longer), who should take charge of the society, 
and preserve discipline and order; for, at a conference formerly 
held, it was resolved, that whenever one of the bishops dies, 
another should be elected in his place—therefore Brother 
Christian Newcomer was then elected as bishop, to take 
charge of the superintendence of the society. 

Newcomer's Journal published in 1834, at first little 
esteemed, gives more than any other publication the history 
of the Church in its formative period, the time covered ex¬ 
tending from 1795 and even earlier to 1830, the year of his 
death. Its material already has been used much, and in the 
pages that follow will continue to be used. 

For the spirit of the early preachers and for the character 
and scope of their work, the minutes of the early conferences, 
already extensively quoted are of the greatest value. Thorough¬ 
ly characteristic is the wonderful prayer with which Geeting, 
the most eloquent of all the early preachers, closed the minutes 
of the conference of 1812, the last minutes recorded by him, a 
short time before his death: “0 Lord, thou Almighty God, 
bless thy work. Give to all thy Holy Spirit. Fill us all with 
thy pure love and with power and with understanding to 
preach thy word and lead a good upright life, and to honor thee, 
0 God, from the depths of our hearts. Grant it us out of thy 
grace, for Jesus' sake, Amen." 




CHAPTER II. 

OUR DENOMINATIONAL NAME 


Significance of a Name—Pre-denominational Names—Unsectarian Society 
—Association—United Brethren—United Brethren in Christ— 

Full Name Reached. 


/ T may be said that the United Brethren Church, like the 
Kingdom of God, came “not with observation/' Leaders 
of different types and small groups of adherents widely 
separated, all engrossed with the thought of a spiritual 
experience and the life beyond, had little thought of permanent 
institutions, and yet less thought of leaving a record for the 
future. The Methodist Episcopal Church had the genius and 
pattern of the Wesleyan societies in Great Britain as a prompter 
and guide. Likewise, the Evangelical Association, the closest 
contemporary of the United Brethren Church, soon was 
separated from antecedent elements and was set forward on 
its own distinct course. But even the name of the United 
Brethren Church emerged or evolved from dim and con¬ 
flicting conditions. 

It often is said that words are air. On the other hand, it 
may be said that words sometimes are things. When words 
are written or spoken, they may be on their way to shaping 
the course of history. They “give to airy nothing a local habi¬ 
tation and a name." This much at least must be accorded to 
them, that they mark the steps of events. Thus, the words 
used in our denominational name marked and did much to 
further and establish the organization and work of the de¬ 
nomination of the United Brethren in Christ. 


What may be termed pre-denominational names are not 
without significance. Die Freiheits Leute (the Liberty People) 
was in a limited way early in use. A favorite text was, “Where 
the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (Freiheit).” IlCor. 
3:17. Other names were Die Neue Reformirte (the New Re¬ 
formed), Die Neue Mennoniten (the New Mennonites), Die 


265 


266 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Otterbeinianer (Otterbein’s People), Die Boehmische (Boehm's 
Followers). Here and there they were called by the names of 
particular preachers, as the followers of Felix Light were called 
Die Lichtes Leute (Light's People), and the followers of 
John Neidig, Die Neidigs Leute (Neidig's Peop e). It should be 
remarked that, under the name Die Allgemeine (the Universal), 
there were many associates or followers of Martin Crider, 
Caspar Sherk, and Felix Light, who very slowly came fully 
within the ranks of the United Brethren. They stood midway 
between the Mennonites and United Brethren. This explains 
the slow formation of classes east of the Susquehanna. 

The term Unparteiischen, meaning the unsectarian, was a 
self-applied name in very general use. This is not the only 
example of a non-party name becoming the name of a party. 
The following resolution, as already quoted, was adopted in 
the history-making conference of 1800: “Resolved, That 
annually a day shall be appointed on which the Unsectarian 
(unparteiischen) preachers shall assemble together and counsel 
how they can become more useful in their office so that the 
church of God may be built up, sinners converted to God, 
and God glorified." The term church (Kirche), used here for 
the church of God in general, indicates appreciation of the 
church in its institutional character. The term church (Kirche), 
with reference to the denomination, was not used until 1813 
and 1814, when it appeared in the minutes of the Miami 
Conference. 

The word Gemeinde, meaning society, was early used for 
a local company of adherents. In the rules of Otterbein's 
church, adopted in 1785, it is said: “No preacher shall stay 
among us (that is, serve the Baltimore church) who will not 
to the best of his ability care for the various societies (Gemein- 
den) in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia." The name 
Gemeinde came to be used for a regular class, and then for the 
denomination. This latter use was facilitated by the fact that 
in the German New Testament the term used for the Christian 
church is Die Gemeinde. Due to the prevalent use of the term 
Gemeinde, there was a long continued use of the term society 
for the local church and general denomination. There was a 


OUR DENOMINATIONAL NAME 


267 


growing use of the designation church from 1813 down to 1881, 
when the term was formally adopted. 

The word Gesellschaft (Association) was used with refer¬ 
ence to the organization effected in 1800. The Discipline of 
1815 says that the preachers united themselves into a society 
(Gesellschaft) which bears the name/' The United Brethren in 
Christ/’ The constitution of 1841 uses the term Gesellschaft 
for the denomination or society or church. The word might be 
translated, the connection. We often see the expression, 
"the connectional interests.” 

Closely resembling the word Gesellschaft is the word 
Gemeinschaft, which may be rendered society or communion. 
We often see the expression "our communion.” This term 
often was used for the denomination or church. A noticeable 
example is given in the minutes of the General Conference of 
1821. That conference resolved, that the communion or de¬ 
nomination of the United Brethren in Christ (Die Gemein¬ 
schaft der Vereinigten Brtider in Christo) be incorporated, an 
act which, however, was not performed until 1890. 

We may now seek to trace the elements that became 
permanent in the name of the denomination. A prefatory 
statement to the recorded minutes of the original conference 
from 1800 to 1812 is the following: "Here now follows what 
the United Brotherhood in Christ Jesus (Die Vereinigte 
Bruderschaft in Christo Jesu) from the year 1800—The 
United (Die Vereinigte) before 1800—have done in their 
annual conference, how the preachers and church (Kirche) 
members should conduct themselves.” This prefatory note 
was made in 1812, when the loose minutes were transcribed 
into the record book. The reference to church-members is 
more to the general church of Christ than to the denomination. 
The name, The United (Die Vereinigte), used before 1800, 
might have Brotherhood (Bruderschaft) understood as fol¬ 
lowing it. The one example that has come down to us from the 
period before 1800 of the name The United (Die Vereinigte or 
Die Vereinigten) is in the papers connected with the building 
in 1793 of the Oberlin Church, near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 
Thus it would be fair to say, as generally has been said, that 


268 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the name, or one of the names for the pioneers of the denomina¬ 
tion up to 1800 was the United Brethren, the noun in German 
often being omitted. This would reflect the memorable words 
of Otterbein at the Isaac Long meeting, 'We are brethren.” 

For the name this side of 1800, the designation "Christ 
Jesus” often would be used in German in the place of the 
single name "Christ” in English. The heading for the book 
of minutes, in which the names of members were recorded in 
1812, is, "Protocol von die Vereinigten Bruderschaft zu 
Christo” (The United Brotherhood in Christ). Thus it would 
seem proper to say that the denominational name this side of 
1800 would be as generally has been said, the United Brethren 
in Christ. Yet, it required time for this definite title or its 
German equivalent to come into use. In the deed for the 
Hagerstown church, made in 1805, the name for the grantee 
was the Society of United Christians. In a hymn book author¬ 
ized by the old conference in 1807, and printed in 1808, the 
designation is the United Brotherhood in Christ (Die Vereinigte 
Bruderschaft in Christo). In the conference minutes of 1808 
and 1812, the German equivalent for the United Brotherhood 
is used; and in the minutes of 1810 the German equivalent for 
the United Brethren appears. In the minutes of 1813, the 
definite name the United Brethren in Christ (Die Vereinigten 
Briider in Christo) is used. Newcomer, in his Journal for 1812, 
and the Miami Conference minutes for the same year use the 
name in this form. All of the examples thus far given are 
translations from the German. The first known example 
given originally in English of the use of the name, the United 
Brethren in Christ, is in the license to preach given to Abraham 
Troxel in 1811, over the signatures of Geeting and Newcomer. 
In the correspondence between the Methodists and the United 
Brethren, carried on in English between 1809 and 1814, the 
name generally given is the German United Brethren, though 
in some cases it is the United Brethren. In this correspondence 
where "in Christ” is given as a part of the title, it is up to 1813 
the result of interpolation. The name United Brethren con¬ 
tinues down to the present time, as a convenient general title 
for the denomination or as applied to local churches. 


OUR DENOMINATIONAL NAME 


269 


But where does the word church come into the title of the 
denomination? As before stated, the first recorded example of 
the use of the word church (Kirche) for the denomination was 
in the minutes of the Miami conference for 1813 and 1814. 
The General conference of 1821 resolved to incorporate the 
society or denomination of the United Brethren in Christ 
(Gemeinschaft der Vereinigten Briider in Christo). The title 
page of Newcomer's Journal, published in 1834, styles him late 
Bishop of the “Church of the United Brethren in Christ the 
italicized words being on a single line and in larger type. The 
Religious Telescope, in its first copy issued, on the last day of 
1834, announces the periodical as published for the Church of 
the “United Brethren in Christ," the word church being left 
outside of the quotation marks that enclosed the title. Many 
examples appeared later, in which the word church was left 
outside of quotation marks as in this case, showing that the 
word was a descriptive common noun rather than a part of the 
title; but gradually the quotation marks were eliminated. 
The constitutions of 1837 and 1841 included the designation, 
“the Church of the United Brethren in Christ,” the italicized 
words, however, standing out in larger type. Spayth in 1850, 
and Lawrence in 1860, made a like use of the title in their 
histories of the Church. From the time when the Bishops of 
the Church began regularly to present quadrennial addresses 
to the General Conferences in 1869, they used the term church 
as a part of the title without any mark of distinction. In the 
first address given by the Bishops in 1857, the word church, 
though used, was not a part of the title. In 1861, the address 
contained no title, and in 1865, no address was given. Finally, 
when the board of trustees for the Church was incorporated 
in 1890, the term Church was formally included in the title. 
In legal papers, the full name in this form now is insisted on. 

It may be admitted that the name United Brethren has 
its difficulties and unsuitableness. In our age, women are 
entitled to a name that does not make them a mere adjunct of 
man. Yet, in all lines, words have their disadvantage. We 
cannot say United Stateser, and so must say American; and 
we must say the United States is a great nation. Likewise, we 


270 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


must say, “She was made chairman, etc. We have no substi¬ 
tute for the word mankind. In connection with proposed 
unions with other churches, members of the United Brethren 
Church have stood stoutly for their denominational name. 
It may be too late to notify the reader that he need not read 
this chapter unless he has a kindled interest or practical occa¬ 
sion for doing so. 


CHAPTER III. 

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION 

The Church and the Kingdom—The Christian Denomination—The Good 
and Bad of Institutions—The Spirit of a Denomination. 

/ N the broadest sense, the church is the divine institution 
for the establishing of the kingdom of God in the world. 
In this sense, it would include whatever formal agency 
was in existence before the time of Christ as well as after¬ 
ward for the establishing of the divine kingdom. Kurtz, the 
author of the Church History, defines the Christian church 
as that “divine institution for the salvation of men which 
Jesus Christ has founded on earth.” A fuller statement of the 
purpose of the Christian church would include both the salva¬ 
tion of men and the establishing of the kingdom of God in the 
world. The two grounds for the existence of the Christian 
church are the authoritative founding of the church by Christ, 
as set forth in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew, and the de¬ 
mand for fellowship in worship and service as the result of a 
common religious experience. The kingdom is the invisible 
communion of those that are saved. Christ is the foundation 
of the kingdom, in other words, of salvation; but he is the in¬ 
visible head of the church, which is built of human material, 
apostles being foundations and pillars, and every Christian a 
living stone. Thus, the church may seem to stand out as 
earthly or earthen. But we are not to forget its relation to its 
living unseen Head, and its supreme purpose in the establishing 
of the kingdom. Often, the church is identified with the 
kingdom, and then divine superlatives are eminently in place. 
The term church likewise is applied to a local congregation 
functioning toward the great end that the Christian church 
has in view. 

Still another sense for the word church, and that with 
which we now are directly concerned, has reference to a Chris¬ 
tian denomination as an institution undertaking to perform the 


271 


272 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


identical functions of the Christian church as indicated above. 
The justification for the particular denomination is found 
largely, if found at all, in the inherent or actual difficulties or 
perversions in connection with a single great organization. 
At the time of the Reformation, when the treasures and hopes 
of the Christian religion so largely were hidden away in the 
great hull of the secularized Roman Church, it became neces¬ 
sary to transfer those treasures and hopes to a fleet of smaller 
vessels. What new conditions and exigencies may require 
remains for the future to disclose. 

The thought of an institution comes into every conception 
in defining the church. An institution is an organization or 
cooperative agency devoted to the attaining of some particular 
end. The end or function exists first, and to meet or perform 
the same the institution springs into existence. Institutions 
have full justification and great possibilities. They enlarge 
the life and multiply the effectiveness of individuals. “One 
shall chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight.” 
They are qualified to survive the passing away of multitudes 
of individuals. The past is billowed over with the graves of 
countless generations, but institutions have the capacity to 
survive all passing change. On the unfavorable side, there 
are many discouraging liabilities. An institution may be 
perverted and turned from its proper object. Constantly we 
are hearing of the evils of institutionalism as trenching on the 
rights and welfare of individuals. The normal life and useful¬ 
ness of individuals may be narrowed or smothered through the 
influence of institutions. But, with all of the liabilities and 
evils clearly seen, means may be found for their avoidance, 
and the way left open for our esteem of those institutions that 
tend to enlarge the life, unite the efforts, and multiply the 
blessings of mankind. Such institutions should appeal to the 
enthusiasms and loyalties of our hearts. 

The United Brethren Church as a Christian denomination 
must justify both its beginning and continued existence by its 
fidelity to the great governing purposes of the Christian church. 
Did it under Providence spring into existence to meet a great 
need? Is it sound at heart, and has it a mission for the present 


THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION 


273 


and the future? If one could not answer these questions 
affirmatively, he would have no interest in being connected 
with this particular denomination or in following its history. 

The student of church history is impressed strongly by 
the special psychology and experience characterizing various 
periods and portions of the Christian church. Some phases 
must be temporary and partial, and in such a case the effort to 
extend or continue them becomes painfully artificial and spirit¬ 
ually subversive. Yet the main vital elements may mark a 
new era and be handed down unbroken. Thus, different 
denominations may have an individuality of their own, marked 
by differences in spirit and methods, which need not be con¬ 
strued as giving to one a preeminence or superior sanctity to 
the others. Luther, speaking for his party, was right when he 
said to the representatives of the Reformed party, “Sie haben 
einen anderen Geist von uns” (You have a different spirit from 
us). The fact of individuality, coupled with historical connec¬ 
tion and fellowship, should give to the membership of a Chris¬ 
tian church, both lay and clerical, an esprit de corps that 
should sweep it forward to new victories and attainments in 
Christian life and service. Applying this conception to the 
United Brethren Church, into whose fellowship we have come 
by choice or by mere situation, we can better seek to under¬ 
stand its history, genius, and mission. 


4 


\ 


* 






» 

































CHAPTER IV. 

THE BEGINNING AND GROWTH OF CHURCH CHARACTER 


A Church not at First Intended—Successive Steps—Minutes of 1812— 
Acts of 1813—Confession of Faith and Rules of 1814—Securing a 
Pastor for Otterbein’s Church. 

r HE progressive transition from what was chiefly a 
religious movement to definite church character 
affords a most interesting study. The Liberty People 
(Die Freiheits Leute), the Unsectarian (Die Un- 
parteiischen) were not eager to adopt church forms and customs. 
Indeed, with some, the resistance was long and obstinate. 
There, however, was too much that was deep and genuine in 
the movement for it to be lost in obstinacy or wantonness. 
Though too slowly for the conserving of much of the results 
of their labors, the German evangelists took the only logical 
course, and, step by step, adopted the necessary elements of 
church character. 

It is said often that they had no intention of setting up a 
church. To their credit it may be said that, at the first and 
even long afterward, they had no such intention. Many are 
the examples of religious movements that did not aim at 
church character, some of them stopping short of such charac¬ 
ter and some of them culminating in a church. The Pietists 
had their congregations or circles of piety, but they never 
formed a church. The Moravians did not intend to form a 
church, and did so only under the force of circumstances. 
The Methodists had no idea that the Holy Club or the United 
Societies would lead to a church. John Wesley lived and 
died in the Anglican Church. We may conceive of the move¬ 
ment under Otterbein as serving as a leaven to transform and 
vitalize existing forms of church organization, but the force 
of conditions, or perhaps better, divine Providence ordained 
that particular church organization should hand down and 
multiply the spiritual life and blessings so graciously initiated. 


275 


276 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


To get a right perspective, it is necessary that we recall 
some of the points already given and note their bearing on 
subsequent changes. The religious movement might be said 
to have begun at the meeting of Otterbein and Boehm about 
1766. Spayth, in an article published in 1844, places the 
beginning in 1758. We might go farther back and place it in 
the time of Otterbein’s ministry at Lancaster. How much of 
meaning is couched in his quiet words written near the close 
of his life, “By degrees was I brought to the knowledge of the 
truth while in Lancaster.” At the same time, when asked how 
many years of his life he was “in a great measure an itinerant,” 
his reply was, “The chief of my time since my coming to 
America, but more largely since my coming to Baltimore.” 
As we come to the church stage, we shall miss much of the 
thrill and exhileration of the earlier period. Instead of 
trooping with the knights, we may feel that we are moving 
along with a prosaic institution. 

The significance of the conference of 1800, as the first in a 
regular series continued down to the present time, already has 
been set forth. The determination to hold annual sessions, 
the deliberate adoption of a name, the election of superin¬ 
tendents or bishops, and plans for future work—all these things 
indicated a distinct institution and a permanent work. The 
minutes of the conference showing the growth of institutional 
features have been given down to and including the minutes of 
1805. We may notice now the progress of events beginning 
with 1806. The conference of this year met at the residence of 
Lorenz Eberhart, near Middletown, Maryland. Joseph 
Hoffman, later elected Bishop, was present for the first time, 
although he was licensed to preach in 1803, and already had 
been engaged as an itinerant preacher. He now entered 
regularly on the work of preaching. Five great meetings were 
planned for the following year. In 1807, the conference met 
at the home of Christian Herr, in Lancaster County, Pennsyl¬ 
vania. This was near the place of the first meeting of Otterbein 
and Boehm. It was also near to the homes of Abraham and 
Christian Hershey, brothers, who had a long and useful career 
as ministers. Christian Hershey later moved to Cumberland 


GROWTH OF CHURCH CHARACTER 


277 


county, and still later to Iowa. At this session, a hymn book 
was ordered compiled. It was printed the following year. 
The conference of 1808 met at Abraham Niswander’s, in 
Virginia. It was the first to be held in that State. The con¬ 
ference of 1809 was held at Christian Herr’s, in Lancaster 
county, Pennsylvania. Martin Boehm, who had been present 
at all the conferences from the first, except those of 1806 and 
1808, was present for the last time. The minutes of current 
sessions of the conference do not indicate that much progress 
was being made. Newcomer and some others saw the necessity 
of better system and stronger discipline. To this many were 
opposed. Newcomer’s disappointment is indicated by the 
following from his Journal: “My wish and desire was to have 
better order and discipline established in our society, and some 
of my brethren were of opinion that this was unnecessary; 
that the word of God alone was all-sufficient, and were there¬ 
fore opposed to all discipline. I could plainly perceive that this 
opposition originated in prejudice, therefore I sincerely and 
fervently prayed for the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The 
Lord answered my prayer, when I almost despaired of success, 
and had nearly determined to leave and withdraw from the 
Society; the brethren resolved, and a resolution was adopted 
in the Conference, to give a friendly and brotherly answer to 
the request and address of the Methodist conference, and I 
hope that peace, unanimity, and concord will be preserved and 
strengthened in the respective societies.” From this time, the 
work of discipline-making went forward. 

The minutes for 1810 give the home of John Cronise, in 
Frederick county, Maryland, as the place of the session of the 
conference for that year, while Newcomer gives Andrew 
Kauffman’s, in the same county as the place. The session for 
1811 was held at Joseph Gnege’s (or Knagi’s), in Cumberland 
county, Pennsylvania. The correspondence between the 
Methodists and the United Brethren keeps before us the steps 
taken toward a more complete system of government and 
administration—the building of a Discipline. A letter from 
the conference soon after the session of 1811, and signed by 
Christian Newcomer, has the following explicit passage on 


278 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the subject: “We have now formed our members into classes 
as much as possible. However, there are a number yet among 
us who have not yet joined with us in this privilege, so long 
delayed by us. We earnestly hope that you will instruct your 
traveling preachers to bear with such as much as the order of 
your church will admit. We would further inform you that 
we have drawn up some regulations, or discipline, among us 
and shall endeavor, more and more, to put them into effect 
among ourselves and our members.” The influence and advice 
of Otterbein had an important bearing in the matter of a more 
settled discipline. 

As giving a comprehensive view of the situation and 
work of the conference, the minutes of the conference of 1812 
will be given entire, along with an appended list of the preachers 
“authorized to perform all of the services of God's house.” 
The minutes, the last recorded by George Adam Geeting, 
who died about six weeks after the conference, are as follows: 

May 13, 1812, we came together in our meeting-house 
(at Antietam) to hold conference. Opened with singing and 
the reading of the fifth chapter of the First Epistle of Peter, 
and with prayer. The following preachers were present: 
Christian Newcomer, Christian Crum, George Adam Geeting, 
Abraham Troxel, Abraham Mayer, Joseph Hoffman, Christian 
Smith, Isaac Niswander, David Snyder, Valentine Baulus, 
Jacob Baulus, Abraham Hershey, Lorenz Eberhart, Michael 
Thomas, Jacob Winter, Christian Berger, Henry Hiestand, 
Henry Spayth, George Geeting, Martin Creider, John Creider, 
Dehof. 

1. Each one spoke concerning his spiritual condition. 
The Lord left not himself without witness among us. The 
session was closed with singing and prayer. To the Lord be 
thanks forever. Amen. 

2. May 14, 1812, we again came together. The Thirty- 
fourth Psalm was read, then singing and prayer. The first 
thing done was the fixing of the 30th of July and the 29th of 
October as prayer and fast days throughout the entire United 
Brotherhood. 

3. A certificate of permission to preach was granted to 
John Smith. 

4. Resolved that Abraham Mayer shall investigate the 
case of Immanuel Ow. If he finds things right, he is authorized 


GROWTH OF CHURCH CHARACTER 279 

to give him again permission to preach or to leave him where 
he is. 

5. Resolved that only one yearly conference shall be 
held in the district of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. 

6. Resolved that Brother Neidig and Brother Grosh 
shall have charge over the Washington United Brethren so¬ 
cieties; namely, the territory north of the Susquehanna. They 
may hold small conferences when it is necessary. When they 
have difficulties that they cannot settle, they shall be brought 
to the yearly conference. 

6. Resolved that the circuit [plan] shall be maintained 
as long as possible. It shall be served every four weeks through 
traveling preachers, who shall be supported. A single preacher 
shal 1 yearly receive eighty dollars, and a married preacher one 
hundred and sixty dollars and also expenses. They shall keep 
an exact account of money received. 

7. Resolved that Henry Hiestand and Henry Spayth 
shall this year travel and preach on our circuit [in Maryland 
and Pennsylvania]. 

8. Ordered that Brother Christian Newcomer send to 
the brethren in the State of Ohio or visit them, and give 
counsel, build up, and exhort as he finds best. 

May 15 our session was begun with singing and prayer 
and the reading of the first chapter of First John. 

9. Resolved that Abraham Mayer shall go to Virginia 
and assist in holding two great meetings. 

10. The communication from the Baltimore Conference 
[Methodist Episcopal] through Brother Swartzwelter and 
Brother Griffith was read and laid before the conference. 

11. Resolved that the communication be accepted, and 
it was unanimously resolved to maintain the unity existing 
between the United Brotherhood and the English Methodists 
according to the Word of God. May the Lord grant his 
blessing thereon. Amen. 

12. Resolved to accept the communication [or proposi¬ 
tion] of the Philadelphia Conference [Methodist Episcopal] 
and to send Brother Smith and David Snyder as messengers to 
the next Philadelphia Conference. 

13. Resolved that the next yearly conference shall be 
held at Christian Herr's, in Manor township, Lancaster 
county, the first Wednesday of May, 1813. 

14. Resolved that Brother Christian Newcomer be given 
authority to hold a conference with the preachers in the Ohio 
district. The Lord give him grace therefor. Amen. 


280 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


15. It was ordered that Abraham Mayer and Jacob Baulus 
shall be placed as elders to have the oversight of the district 
between the Potomac and Susquehanna rivers. 

16. Resolved that Brother Spayth shall make a visit to 
Virginia in the month of November, and Brother Eberhart 
shall take charge of his circuit. The next time Abraham Mayer 
and Jacob Baulus [shall make the visit]. 

17. September 18 a camp-meeting shall be held if a place 
can be found for it. 

0 Lord, thou Almighty God, bless thy work. Give to 
all thy servants who preach among us thy Holy Spirit. Fill us 
all with thy pure love, and with power and with understanding 
to preach thy word, and lead a good, upright life, and to 
honor thee, 0 God, from the depths of our hearts. Grant it 
us out of thy grace, for Jesus' sake. Amen. 

Preachers who died this year, Peter Kemp, John Hershey, 
Matthias Kessler, and Martin Boehm. Kemp and Hershey 
died in 1811, Kessler and Boehm in 1812. 

GEORGE ADAM GEETING, 
CHRISTIAN NEWCOMER. 


The following preachers are 
the services of God’s house: 
William Otterbein 
Martin Boehm 
George Adam Geeting 
Christian Newcomer 
Christian Crum 
John Hershey 
Christopher Grosh 
Abraham Troxel 
Ludwig Duckwald 
John Neidig 
David Long 
Abraham Hershey 
Christian Hershey 
Those not thus authorized: 
Jacob Dehof 
Jacob Baulus 


authorized to perform all of 

Abraham Mayer 
William Ambrose 
Isaac Niswander 
Daniel Troyer 
George Benedum 
Peter Kemp 
Adam Riegel 
Frederick Schaffer 
Joseph Hoffman 
David Gingerich 
Christian Berger 
David Snyder 
Christian Smith 

Hermann Ow 
George Hoffman 


In section 6 the reference is certainly to Lancaster county 
and adjoining territory. The fact that two sections have the 
number 6 shows that there is some confusion. Evidence is 
presented that a more settled and better supported itinerant 
system was being established. Section 5, by not naming Ohio, 


GROWTH OF CHURCH CHARACTER 


281 


seems to recognize the formation of the conference in Ohio in 
1810. The place of section 8 was taken by section 14, wherein 
a clearer recognition of the work in Ohio is given. Prominent 
preachers whose death occurred during the preceding year 
already have been noticed. 

The conference of 1813 met at Christian Herr’s in Lan¬ 
caster county, Pennsylvania. Christopher Grosh was elected 
president. For the sessions of the conference when neither 
Otterbein nor Boehm was present, Geeting seems to have 
presided in 1806, 1808, and 1810, and Grosh in 1811. As 
stated, Grosh was elected formally in 1813. Yet neither 
Geeting nor Grosh should be regarded as a Bishop on account 
of being made president. From this time forward, Newcomer 
holds the lead ng place. 

Every year, beginning with 1809, exhibits serious atten¬ 
tion given to the formation of a Discipline. The conference 
which convened in 1813 adopted the following resolution: 
“Resolved that the confession of faith and the evangelical 
discipline of the United Brethren in Christ shall be printed.” 
These documents were to be prepared or revised during the 
year and submitted to the next annual conference. We do 
not know what or how much already in existence finally was 
incorporated into the confession and Discipline. That a fairly 
complete Discipline already was in existence is indicated by 
the fact that, ten days before the conference of 1813, Newcomer 
laid before a conference of Albright preachers a United Breth¬ 
ren Discipline for their examination. The serious purpose to 
carry the formulation of rules to greater completion is indicated 
in the following extract from a letter sent by the United 
Brethren conference of 1813 to the Baltimore conference of the 
Methodist Church: “Endeavoring as we are to become united 
in establishing a real gospel discipline among our people, we 
have it in lovely contemplation soon to have printed and cir¬ 
culated among our members a system of rules, which, though 
they may appear in some respects imperfect, yet may serve 
for the commencement of a form of government for our people 
which may in process of time be improved to such a state of 


282 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


perfection as may be to the benefit and happiness of future 
generations.” 

A very important act of the conference of 1813 was the 
electing of Newcomer Bishop for one year, to have active 
charge over the conferences. 

An act having great significance from the churchly stand¬ 
point was the ordaining as elders by Otterbein, six weeks 
before his death, of Joseph Hoffman, Christian Newcomer, 
and Frederick Schaffer. Otterbein himself was impressed 
deeply with the responsibility of the act. 

The conference met at Hagerstown, Maryland, in 1814, 
quite certainly in the new church erected in 1810 to take the 
place of the old log church erected in 1805 and deeded to the 
“Society of the United Christians.” Numerous and impor¬ 
tant changes had taken place in these years. In 1814 a Disci¬ 
pline, probably enlarged from what existed before, was sub¬ 
mitted to the conference and was at least tentatively adopted. 
The Discipline, signed by Christian Newcomer and Christopher 
Grosh, is still preserved in manuscript form. The following is 
this early Discipline, including the Confession of Faith: 

Article 1 . In the name of God we confess before all men, 
that we believe in the only true God, Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost; that these three are one; the Father in the Son, the Son 
in the Father, and the Holy Ghost equal in essence with both; 
that this God created heaven and earth and all that in them is, 
visible as well as invisible, and sustains governs, protects, 
and supports the same. 

Article 2. We believe in Jesus Christ; that he is very 
God and man, Savior and Redeemer of the whole world; that 
all men through him may be saved if they will; that this Jesus 
suffered for us; that he died and was buried, rose on the third 
day, ascended into heaven, and that he will come again, at 
the last day, to judge the living and the dead. 

Article 3. We believe in the Holy Ghost; that he pro¬ 
ceeds from the Father and the Son; that we through him must 
be sanctified and receive faith, thereby being cleansed from 
all filthiness of the flesh and spirit. 

Article 1>. We believe that the Bible is the word of God; 
that it contains the true way to our souls' well-being and 
salvation; that every true Christian is bound to acknowledge 
and receive it, with the influences of the Spirit of God, as his 


GROWTH OF CHURCH CHARACTER 


283 


only rule and guide; and that without repentance, faith in 
Jesus Christ, forgiveness of sins, and following after Jesus 
Christ, no one can be a true Christian. 

Article 5. We believe that the doctrine which the Holy 
Scriptures contain, namely, the fall in Adam and salvation 
through Jesus Christ shall be preached and proclaimed through¬ 
out the whole world. 

We recommend that the outward signs and ordinances, 
namely, baptism and the remembrance of the Lord in the dis¬ 
tribution of the bread and wine, be observed; also the washing 
of feet, where the same is desired. 

NOW [FOLLOW] THE RULES OF THE UNITED BRETH¬ 
REN IN CHRIST 

Article 1 . Only such brethren shall be acknowledged as 
preachers by the United Brethren in Christ, who have been 
proposed at the conference or a great meeting and by the same 
have been regularly examined and have answered the following 
questions: Whether he believes in Christ, whether he has 
received the forgiveness of his sins, whether he follows after 
peace and holiness, whether the salvation of his soul, along 
with the salvation of his fellow-men, lies on his heart, whether 
he will submit himself to the counsel of his brethren. Such 
persons shall receive a written permission. 

Article 2. Such preachers shall, at the conference, every 
three years, elect Bishops by a majority of votes. 

Article S. What are the duties of a bishop? (1) To preside 
at the conference. (2) He shall have the right, with the con¬ 
sent of the conference, to act. (3) By the consent of the 
conference, he has the liberty to choose elders. 

Article U. To whom are the Bishops , elders , and preachers 
answerable for immoral conduct? To the general (allgemeine) 
conference. But where the conduct is contrary to the Bible 
and the evidence is sufficient, the one to whom the case is 
known shall take other preachers with him and investigate 
the case. If it is found to be contrary to the Bible, then shall 
the accused remain silent until conference. 

Article 5. Every preacher shall use diligence to build up 
the society, as far as possible, by doctrine and life, by prayer 
and a godly walk. He shall seek to become acquainted with 
all the members of his society, so that he can call the same by 
name, and when it is possible, to talk to them about the 
salvation of their souls. 

Article 6. In each society leaders shall be chosen, whose 
duty it shall be to open and close the prayer-meetings and 


284 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


private meetings; also to visit the sick, and to exhort and keep 
in love every member of the society, and to keep a watch upon 
themselves. 

Article 7. Every member of the society shall confess that 
he receives the Bible as the word of God; that from now on, 
he will strive from his heart to seek his welfare in Christ, and 
to work out his salvation with fear and trembling, and flee the 
eternal wrath of God. 

Article 8. Every member shall endeavor to lead a strict 
and godly life, to be diligent in prayer, especially in private, 
and whenever possible, to be present at all meetings, both 
public services and prayer-meetings, for his own edification. 

Article 9. Heads of families should never omit to pray 
with their families morning and evening, and to set them a good 
example in all Christian virtues. 

Article 10. Every member shall endeavor to walk cir¬ 
cumspectly as in the presence of God, to habituate himself to 
communion with God in his business occupations, to practice 
love toward friend and foe, to do good to the poor, and seek 
to be a follower of Jesus Christ indeed. 

Article 11. Every member shall abstain from strong 
drink, and use it only on necessity as medicine. 

Article 12. Every member shall abstain from ordinary 
occupations on Sunday, buying and selling, but spend the time 
in devotion, in singing spiritual songs to the [honor] and glory 
of God. 

Article 13. Every member of this society shall contribute 
quarterly, with a free will, as much as his circumstances will 
allow for the support of the traveling preachers. 

Article lk. It is the duty of every member of this society 
to live a peaceable, quiet, and godly life in his intercourse with 
all men, as it behooves a Christian to live in peace; especially 
shall each one be obedient to the government and the laws of 
the land, for government is ordained of God. 

Article 15. If disputes should arise between two or more 
brethren of the society concerning debts or any other cause, 
and the disputing parties cannot come to an agreement, then 
the preacher who has the oversight of the society shall investi¬ 
gate the matter, and shall recommend to the disputing parties 
a reference to a committee, which shall consist of three members 
of the society, of whom the plaintiff shall choose one, the 
defendant another, (and these two a third), and these three 
shall settle the difficulties. In case, however, one of the con¬ 
tending parties should be dissatisfied with the decision, he 
may appeal to the next great meeting, by making this known 


GROWTH OF CHURCH CHARACTER 


285 


to the preachers, to have a second settlement. If the preachers 
find sufficient reason therefore, a second settlement shall be 
allowed, in which case each of the parties shall choose two 
members of the society, and these four a fifth, who shall decide 
the difficulties fully. If one of the persons should still not be 
satisfied with this decision he thereby excludes himself from 
the society. If a member of the society should refuse, in case 
of debts or other difficulties, to allow the matter to be settled, 
after this has been recommended to him by the preachers who 
have oversight of the society, or should a member of the 
society begin suit before the civil court before the foregoing 
regulations have been followed, he shall be expelled from the 
society, unless the difficulties are of such a kind that they de¬ 
mand and justify a legal decision. 

Christopher Grosh and Christian Newcomer. 

The Confession of Faith is built mainly on the Apostles' 
Creed, though it gives the doctrine of the Western Church as 
to the Holy Spirit's proceeding from the Father and the Son 
(filioque), and the Moravian doctrine as to double guidance, 
naming “the Bible with the influences of the Holy Spirit." 
No one will say that the Confession is other than evangelical. 
As both the Confession of Faith and the Rules were for an 
indefinite time in process of formation, Otterbein probably, 
directly or indirectly, contributed to their form and substance. 

In the rules, Article 3 declares that the preachers shall 
elect Bishops “every three years." While the minutes of 
1814 do not refer to the adoption of a Discipline, they do 
record that Newcomer was elected Bishop in 1814 for three 
years, the term named in the Discipline above given. At 
the preceding session, he was elected for one year. Article 11, 
on strong drink, takes a position in advance of what was pre¬ 
vailing at the time. Other articles were the basis for future 
Disciplines of the Church. 

The session of 1814 was the first sitting of the conference 
following the death of Otterbein. The following report of the 
action of the officers and members of the Baltimore congrega¬ 
tion was made to the conference: 

After the death of the deceased, William Otterbein, the 
elders and trustees of the Evangelical Reformed Church as¬ 
sembled to counsel with one another in what way the congrega- 


286 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


tion in the future may best be preserved, the members of the 
same built up, the honor of God furthered through it. The 
greatest difficulty which they found was in the selection of a 
suitable preacher; one who, with the help and assistance of 
God, would carry forward the work begun by God through 
our deceased preacher, his faithful servant, William. Otterbein, 
and declare the will of God pure and plain and without fear 
according to the Bible; in short, a preacher who does not preach 
for pay or money, but has on his heart more than all else the 
welfare and salvation of his hearers. Long before the death 
of our deceased father this was his greatest concern, but it 
pleased Divine Providence to take away this burden of his 
heart yet before his death, and to make evident that with him 
is counsel and help when one least looks for it. Through a 
special providence, Frederick Schaffer happened to come 
hither. He preached in our church, was by the deceased 
William Otterbein solemnly ordained to preach, and consented 
to serve this congregation since that time. We have reason to 
believe that the majority of the members are well satisfied with 
him, and that, with the help of the Lord, he labored among us 
profitably. The vestry would have no hesitancy in recommend¬ 
ing said Frederick Schaffer as the preacher of the congregation, 
and expecting all else from the help and assistance of Jesus 
Christ, if they were not convinced that insurmountable diffi¬ 
culties stand in the way. In order, therefore, to avoid all 
difficulties and to preserve this congregation, the vestry have 
drawn up the following resolutions, which they herewith lay 
before the congregation for their approval or rejection: 

First. That this congregation connect itself with the 
United Brethren, so that from time to time we may by them 
be supplied with preachers. 

Second . That this congregation will provide for the sup¬ 
port and annual salary of the preacher. 

Third. That the vestry elect two members of the congre¬ 
gation to make the United Brethren, in their conference, 
acquainted with these resolutions. 

After mature consideration, these resolutions were sub¬ 
mitted to the members of the church present for acceptance or 
rejection. So, as the votes in the church-book to the names of 
those present show, the result was, thirty-five votes were cast 
for approval and only one for rejection. So the above resolu¬ 
tions were approved. 

A true copy. John Hildt. 

A committee consisting of David Snyder, Abraham Mayer, 
John Neidig, Jacob Baulus, and the Bishop were appointed to 


GROWTH OF CHURCH CHARACTER 


287 


take into consideration the request of the Baltimore congrega¬ 
tion. The result was the adoption of the following resolution: 
“Resolved, that Joseph Hoffman shall preach one year in Balti¬ 
more and, if he and the congregation are satisfied he can remain 
longer, but not longer than three years.” From this time, 
United Brethren preachers regularly have served the congrega¬ 
tion. From the nature of the case, the relations of the congrega¬ 
tion are anomalous. The congregation remains an independent 
congregation voluntarily associated with the United Brethren 
Church. At times, it has sought to have its own representation 
in the general Conference. In 1849, the General Conference 
voted to recognize the members of the congregation as members 
of the United Brethren Church. At present, the congregation 
is recognized as connected with the annual conference to which 
the pastor of the congregation belongs. 

Thus, many specific acts coming from conferences and 
individuals have been adduced showing the measure of church 
character attained. Perhaps, however, the recital of ordinary 
events and words spoken or written, with no ulterior reference, 
best depict the stage of development actually reached. 





















BISHOP J. J. GLOSSBRENNER 


BISHOP DANIEL SHUCK 



BISHOP JACOB MARKWOOD 







CHAPTER V. 

THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


First Steps Westward—The National Highway and the Forbes Road— 
Newcomer’s First Visit—Visit in 1803—Early Preachers—Beginnings 
at Mount Pleasant—Mount Pleasant Church Property—New¬ 
comer’s Later Visits—Pioneering in Ohio—Miami Conference 
Organized—Beginnings in Miami Valley and Scioto 
Region—Beginnings in Indiana and Kentucky— 

The Miami Conference Minutes of 1814 


r HE religious movement which had its beginning in 
Maryland, Virginia, and eastern Pennsylvania, early 
began to extend itself westward. The work of local 
preachers, preaching in their own neighborhood, or 
where they liked, associating themselves often for holding 
“great meetings/' began about 1794 to be transferred to preach¬ 
ers that should give a larger proportion of their time to the 
work of preaching. At first, a single circuit was mapped out, 
extending to the most needy parts of the fields already covered, 
and to new fields that might be entered. Sometimes it re¬ 
quired ten weeks to make the round. Newcomer was the first 
to accept and travel a circuit. He, however, did not complete 
his round without returning to his home at times, and then 
going out to other points on his circuit. His Journal, beginning 
October, 1795, may be taken as indicating about the beginning 
of his settled itinerant work. The first entry in his Journal is 
an account of a journey to Huntingdon and Center counties, 
in Pennsylvania, among the mountains that lift themselves as 
a barrier in the way toward western Pennsylvania. But even 
here the work had been begun and classes had been formed. 
Against all difficulties, progress continued to be made along 
this line of advance. 

A bold and decisive effort to follow the multitudes of Ger¬ 
mans that were moving to the West, and to proclaim the gospel 
to them in their new homes, was made in 1799, when New¬ 
comer, accompanied by Abraham Troxel, made a journey to 


289 


290 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


western Pennsylvania. As this was the first of a good many 
similar journeys undertaken by Newcomer, we may notice 
the course that he took and the difficulties that stood in the 
way. 

At an early day, there were two trails or highways from 
eastern to southwestern Pennsylvania, the one corresponding 
to what is now called the National road or Old Trails route, 
and the other corresponding to what is now called the Lincoln 
highway. The former follows the course taken by General 
Braddock in 1755, in his disastrous campaign aimed at the 
capture of Fort Duquesne from the French. The latter 
follows the course taken by General Forbes in 1758, when Fort 
Duquesne was taken by the English and renamed Fort Pitt or 
Pittsburgh. At the first, the Forbes road was more thoroughly 
made, and was the road more generally taken by Newcomer 
and the emigrant trains moving westward. From his home in 
Maryland, Newcomer generally would pass through Mercers- 
burg to the foot of the Tuscarora or Cove mountain range. 
At Fort Loudon, he would strike the now famous Lincoln 
highway, at this point six hundred and forty-one feet above 
sea level. The range just named rises to a height of twenty- 
two hundred and forty feet. Beyond this range is McConnels- 
burg, the county seat of Fulton County, a county so rough that 
it is not yet touched by a railroad. Within the county, crossing 
the course of the traveler, are two small ranges of hills, and then 
the precipitous Sideling Hill range rising to the height of two 
thousand feet. Just beyond is the range known as Ray's Hill, 
from which one passes into the valley of the Raystown branch 
of the Juniata, which fortunately provides a gap through a 
double line of mountains beyond which lies Bedford, an im¬ 
portant center of travel. From here, the highway leads over 
the main range of the Alleghenies at an elevation of two 
thousand nine hundred eight feet, and descends into Somerset 
valley. Thence, it leads over Laurel Hill range at an elevation 
of two thousand six hundred eighty-four feet, into Ligonier 
valley, and then through a gorge over Chestnut Ridge to Greens- 
burg and Pittsburgh. Newcomer, however, always followed 
at least in part, the road known as the West Newton, Mount 


THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


291 


Pleasant, and Bedford highway, which branches southward 
from the Forbes road about two miles west of Bedford, and 
then turns to an almost parallel course with the Forbes road, 
passing through Somerset to Mount Pleasant and West 
Newton. Beyond Bedford, it passes over the main range of 
the Alleghenies and the Laurel and Chestnut ranges, as does 
the Forbes road. This road west of Bedford, which served 
Newcomer and his associates so well, originally was known as 
the Glades road, and led on through (little) Washington to 
Wheeling. It had greater advantages and less difficulties in 
crossing the mountain ranges than any other road. It was 
built by the British in 1771 and 1772, being then surfaced with 
stone. Yet the whole journey from eastern to western Penn¬ 
sylvania involved continuous difficulty and hardship. It 
was not so much the height of the mountains, for the elevations 
were comparatively moderate, but the number of ranges, the 
general roughness of the country, and the tortuous course 
that had to be taken that made travel laborious and dreaded. 
Newcomer frequently traveled on the National highway from 
Uniontown to Washington, Pennsylvania, and points beyond, 
the National highway and the Glades road being the same 
beyond Washington. The National highway was begun in 
1806, and completed as far as Wheeling in 1818. It presents 
about the same problems and difficulties in mountain climbing 
as the Forbes highway. Along these lines of travel, German 
settlers, many of them known to the German evangelists, were 
almost every place to be found, and along these lines or the 
railroads that now follow or parallel them the permanent 
fruits of their labor yet are to be found. 

In Newcomer’s first trip across the mountains, in 1799, he 
followed the course of the Forbes highway and Glades road as 
far as Somerset, whence he went to Connelsville, the region 
being known as Redstone, the waymark or destination of much 
of western travel. Newcomer and his companion, Abraham 
Troxel, who had preached all along the way, now gave them¬ 
selves to zealous preaching, with much responsive interest on 
the part of the people, in Fayette, Washington, and Somerset 
counties. Troxel separated from Newcomer for a time, going 


292 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


to the Glades near Berlin. In this time, he doubtless visited 
Mount Pleasant. Meeting again at Berlin, the two travelers 
returned home by way of Cumberland. In 1828, Newcomer 
traveled the National road as far as Cumberland, and then 
crossed to Somerset on the road usually followed by him, 
going thence to Connelsville. Once, returning from western 
Pennsylvania, he went south from Somerset, crossing the line 
of the National highway and the narrow strip of Maryland 
into Virginia, and thence to his home. Once, in going from his 
home, he simply reversed this course. Almost invariably, 
Newcomer traveled on horseback. He was noted for the good 
horses that he rode and the good care that he gave them, 
though again and again we are told of one and another of his 
horses giving out under the hard use to which they necessarily 
were put. 

Four years elapsed before Newcomer again visited the 
Western country. Already we have noticed the labors with 
which these years were occupied. Some of his effort was given 
to scaling the mountains and penetrating the valleys sloping 
toward the east. At the direction of the annual conference 
in 1808, accompanied by Henry Crum, he again started 
westward, going by the Forbes road to Bedford, and then by 
Somerset and Berlin to Mount Pleasant. We must not forget 
that he neglected no opportunities to make and fill appoint¬ 
ments by the way. This was his first visit to the vicinity of 
Mount Pleasant. The following extract from Newcomer's 
Journal gives an example of the spirit and success of his work: 

Nov. 10—At night we preached at Mr. Bonnet's, an 
intelligent German; here I spoke from Hebrews 2:v.3. I had 
not spoken long before some of my hearers fell to the floor, 
others stood trembling and crying so loud that my voice could 
scarcely be heard. 11th—We preached at Mr. Schwope’s; here 
also the power of God displayed itself in a strange and marvel¬ 
ous manner. Several of the congregation fell down apparently 
lifeless, others shook, trembled, and were agitated in a powerful 
manner. At night I preached at Mr. Charles Manensmidt’s, 
from 2nd Peter, l:v.l9; here likewise the people fell down and 
lay as if in a swoon or fainting fit; may God have mercy on 
them, convert them truly, and adopt them into the family of 
the children of God. 12th—This morning my poor soul re- 


THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


293 


joices in the God of my salvation; I am ready and willing to 
spend and be spent in the service of my Master. A great many 
people were assembled together today; I spoke to them from 
Hebrews 12:v.l9, with great liberty. The Lord accompanied 
his word with power; many were the wounded and slain; some 
of the most stubborn sinners fell instantly before the power of 
God. The meeting continued the whole night, and before its 
close several were enabled to rejoice in the pardon of their 
sins; glory be to God. Sunday 13—Today we had indeed a 
little Pentecost; from 300 to 400 persons had collected, more 
than the barn in which we had assembled for worship could 
contain. I preached to them from Titus 3, with great liberty 
and effect for the salvation of souls. The congregation was 
remarkably attentive to the word; though it rained, those that 
had no shelter in the barn kept their stand in the rain without 
the least disturbance. It is indeed surprising, and at least to 
me somewhat mysterious, to behold the manner in which the 
power of God works here among the people. During the time 
of preaching, several persons fell to the floor, some lay as if 
they were dead, others shook so violently that two or three 
men could scarcely hold them; sometimes the excitement would 
be so great that I had to stop speaking for several minutes, 
until the noise abated; some few were praising God and shouting 
for joy. Brother Christian Berger addressed the congregation. 
When I had concluded my discourse in the German, I then 
preached in the English language, from 1st Peter, l:v.3, and 
the effect was again the same. 

The strange phenomena attending these meetings were 
much like those attending the great Cane Ridge revival in 
Kentucky in these same years, and yet the results there are 
everywhere acclaimed now as a most genuine, far-reaching, and 
enduring revival of spiritual religion. In a more humble way 
the little revival in western Pennsylvania affected the whole 
community adjacent and made Mount Pleasant a new Antioch 
for the spreading of the gospel to the regions beyond. After 
preaching in a number of neighboring places with like results, 
the travelers returned to their homes, a part of their course 
being through Virginia. 

But let us notice a little further the planting of the Church 
in this region. Some permanent results in 5 Washington and 
Somerset counties may be traced to; the|tour|of Newcomer 
four years before. A preaching place at Christopher Winters’ 


294 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


west of Washington, was established early, and a substantial 
and commodious church building was erected about 1803 
near where now stands the Zion church, the third in the same 
community. The first preachers to settle in this part of 
Pennsylvania were John G. Pfrimmer, about 1801, and Mat¬ 
thias Bortsfield, before 1803. Christian Berger, who was an 
early settler, who had been converted in eastern Pennsylvania, 
was recognized as a preacher in 1803. Pfrimmer and Berger 
soon became laborious and highly successful evangelists. 
As a result of their preaching, a great revival swept over the 
field of their labors in western Pennsylvania in 1803 and 1804. 
Pfrimmer in his restless zeal became largely a law unto him¬ 
self, working irregularly with the United Brethren and at the 
same time seeking recognition as a minister of the German 
Reformed church. He probably had been ordained by Otter- 
bein and his associates. In consequence of his ambiguous 
connections, the United Brethren withdrew recognition from 
him in 1802. In 1805 he again received recognition. 

Abraham Troxel, while not the first United Brethren 
preacher west of the Allegheny Mountains, became, after 1804, 
when he located near Mount Pleasant, the chief representative 
and support of the Church in western Pennsylvania. His 
house was a permanent center for the activities of the United 
Brethren far and wide. Though long an active preacher in 
eastern Pennsylvania, in 1811, by order of the annual confer¬ 
ence, he received his regular license to preach, signed by 
Geeting and Newcomer. It has also the force of an elder’s 
license. In this license, we have the first full denominational 
name in English, "The United Brethren in Christ.” The 
definite German equivalent for this name did not come into 
existence until 1812 and 1813. Abraham Troxel was the 
owner of four hundred acres of land, with a spacious double 
log-house and a large barn and other provisions capable of 
accommodating a large number of people. The name originally 
occurs as Drachsel. He died in 1825. In 1914, a suitable 
monument was erected to his memory at the place on the old 
family homestead where sleeps his dust. 


THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


295 


Bonnet's schoolhouse, in which the religious meetings 
generally were held, was about a mile and a half east of Mount 
Pleasant, on the main highway leading over the mountains, 
and in full view of Chestnut Ridge. It was erected in 1810 by 
John Bonnet and Abraham Troxel, and was used both for 
school and church purposes. John Bonnet, spoken of as an 
intelligent German, was a Mennonite, there being a great 
many Mennonites in the southern half of Westmoreland 
county. Many of these were devoted earnestly to spiritual 
religion and engaged readily in religious services along with the 
United Brethren, Bonnet himself being a trustee representing 
the United Brethren when the union church in Mount Pleasant 
was deeded in 1815. But, when the United Brethren began to 
be organized more definitely into a church, he remained with 
the Mennonites, and the Mennonites continued to hold their 
services in the schoolhouse after the United Brethren ceased 
in 1844 to hold religious services there. Even while services 
were held in the Bonnet schoolhouse, and at an early time in the 
church at Mount Pleasant, many meetings were held in private 
houses, rooms being built and arranged specially for the same. 
Benches were carried in for the services, and afterward stored 
in sheds. We must not forget the newness of the country. 
In 1810, Mount Pleasant had but thirty-four houses, all of 
them log houses. The country about was correspondingly 
unsubdued and undeveloped. 

The United Brethren beginnings at Mount Pleasant were 
so typical, and at the same time so anomalous, that some 
further notice should be given to them. Here, a nucleus of 
adherents was formed, which for a long time refused to be 
called a class. Here, at some time between 1803 and 1812, 
the United Brethren came to have, and yet not to have, a half 
interest in a log church on Main street, situated on ground 
generously allowed by its owner for a church and graveyard. 
In 1815, the owner sold the ground to the two religious bodies 
that had contributed to the erection of the building and were 
the support of religion in the community, the consideration 
being two hundred and fifty dollars. One of these bodies was 
the Associate Reformed church, which in 1858 entered into the 


296 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


union by which the United Presbyterian Church was formed. 
The United Brethren constituted the other body. In the 
deed, the two bodies were called the "English and German 
Church in the town of Mount Pleasant,” and are referred to 
separately as "the English being of the aforesa'd Reformed 
Church,” and "the German being of German Reformed 
Presbyterian Church.” In 1830, the log church was replaced 
by a brick church, joint ownership and use being continued. 
In 1853, the property was sold at auction, the Associate Re¬ 
formed Church becoming sole owner. It is not strange that, 
after the designation given to the United Brethren in the deed 
of 1815, an enabling act was sought for and obtained from the 
legislature of Pennsylvania, making the United Brethren 
trustees "capable in law” to convey the one half interest in 
said property to the trustees of the Associated Reformed 
Church. The enabling act adopted in 1854 recites that the 
churchyard and burying ground had been owned and . occupied 
in common by the two congregations "since the year 1812.” 
The name in the deed of 1815—the German Reformed Pres¬ 
byterian—which may reflect an earlier contract or under¬ 
standing, suggests the confused period following 1802 wh n 
John George Pfrimmer was engaged in evangelistic campaigns 
in the name both of the United Brethren and the German 
Reformed church. In 1806, the German Reformed lodged a 
complaint against him on that account. 

In 1807, Newcomer, unaccompanied, journeyed as far 
as to Berlin, west of the Allegheny ridge, but on account of 
sickness was compelled to return home. 

The following year, accompanied by Geeting, his tried 
and faithful co-worker, he again visited western Pennsylvania. 
They went in the usual direct way to Bonnet's and Troxel's 
in Westmoreland county. They preached in Mount Pleasant, 
in the courthouse at Greensburg, and beyond the Monongahela, 
and at numerous places on their return. Geeting was given 
the foremost place in preaching. They preached in churches 
and held sacramental meetings. Additional preachers were 
entering the work. In 1809, Newcomer, accompanied by Joseph 
Hoffman, again visited western Pennsylvania, and preached 


THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


297 


over a wide range of territory, including Washington county 
and Allegheny county beyond Pittsburgh. Hoffman was a 
great preacher and the meetings produced a great impression. 
On their return, Newcomer records, “On the Alleghenies we 
alighted and gave thanks to God for all his mercies bestowed 
on us on our journey.” 

From noticing the Western country in the State of Penn¬ 
sylvania, we now are to study the new Western country 
beyond the Ohio River. Having been so long a time with 
Newcomer, we will allow him at the first still to conduct us— 
Newcomer the connecting link between the earlier and the 
later in the Church, between the East and the West, and, 
moreover, since Otterbein, the largest maker of the denomina¬ 
tional history, and through his Journal, for the period in which 
he wrought, its faithful historian. For June 22, 1810, New¬ 
comer’s Journal says: “This morning I prayed once more with 
my family, commended them and myself to the care and pro¬ 
tection of my heavenly Father, bade them an affectionate 
farewell, and set out on my journey.” He was to be gone 
twelve weeks. Christian Crum, an efficient preacher of long 
experience, was his traveling companion. They preached in 
the courthouse at Somerset, and at other places on their way, 
including Mount Pleasant and places in Washington county. 
They crossed the Ohio river above Wheeling, passed through 
Zanesville, and July 10th came to the homes of Abraham 
Hiestand and George Benedum, United Brethren ministers, 
living in Fairfield county, the former from Virginia and the 
later from eastern Pennsylvania. Of both, notice will be taken 
later. In their incursion into Ohio, they had the advantage 
of the road known as Zane's trace, the first wagon road opened 
in Ohio. It was located in 1796, under the direction of the 
general government. Before the government would accept it, 
Zane was required to drive a wagon over its entire length. It 
started at Wheeling, and passed through Zanesville, Lancaster, 
and Chillicothe, and terminated at Maysville, Kentucky. 
Many immigrants followed this road instead of going by boat 
down the Ohio river. In going to the northern places, New¬ 
comer went by Beaver to Canton. In going to Harrison 


298 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


county, he crossed the Ohio river at Steubenville. The roads 
had much to do, not only with the settling of the country, but 
also with whatever made for the well-being of the people. In 
Fairfield and Ross counties, Newcomer preached to large 
congregations. He records: “Here I met with many old 
friends and acquaintances from the East, all entreating me 
to pay them a vsit.” 

Thus we have pointed out to us what became a great 
center for the work of the United Brethren. The splendid 
country and splendid crops which Newcomer saw caused him 
to exclaim, “Oh, what a country this will be in half a century 
hence!" He passed through Chillicothe and the Pickaway 
plains, and came to Lewis Kemp's, four miles east of Dayton. 
Lewis Kemp was a brother of Peter Kemp, at whose house 
the conferences of 1800 and 1801 were held. He then says: 
“Today we passed through Dayton and came to Andrew 
Zeller's, where we were joyfully received." 

Thus, another important center for the work of the United 
Brethren is located, this one being in the valley of the Great 
Miami. Tarrying but for a night, he went to Lebanon, in 
Warren county, where he met an old friend with whom he 
stayed for a night, and then hastened to Cincinnati, where he 
paid a visit to Thomas King, whom he had known in Balti¬ 
more. He crossed the Ohio to Newport, Kentucky, and re¬ 
turned to Cincinnati, where he preached and was waited on by 
several German friends, who requested him to return or send 
some other German preachers to them. He preached at 
Zeller’s and lodged one night with Daniel Troyer, who with 
Andrew Zeller constituted the nucleus for the preachers of the 
Miami valley. 

Returning, Newcomer held a two-day's meeting at Lewis 
Kemp's, at which strong impressions were made. At a camp¬ 
meeting near Chillicothe, Newcomer, Crum, Troyer, and 
Thomas Winters preached. A sacramental meeting and other 
meetings were held and then, without anything to herald it, 
the great, or little Miami conference was organized and had 
its first session. The session, occupying a single day, was held 
on August 13, 1810, and the place was at Michael Kreider's, in 


THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


299 


Ross county. Newcomer's description is: “13th—Today I 
held a little conference with the brethren, 15 preachers (how 
I write! Preachers? Indeed we are not worthy the appella¬ 
tion) were present. Bless the Lord for the brotherly love and 
unanimity of mind which pervaded throughout." 

The following are the minutes of this initial session: 

The first conference, held August 13, in the year of the 
gracious birth of our Savior Jesus Christ 1810, at Michael 
Kreider's, in Ross County, Ohio. 

The following preachers were present: Christian New¬ 
comer, Christian Crum, George Benedum, Abraham Hiestand, 
John Forshauer, Michael Kreider, Daniel Troyer, Thomas 
Winters, and Andrew Zeller, as full ministers [or elders]; Jacob 
Zeller, Lewis Kramer, Henry Evinger, and Henry Hiestand, 
preachers; Frederick Klinger and John Pontius, exporters. 

At the opening of the conference the third chapter of the 
First Epistle of John was read, and then singing, and prayer 
to God for his blessing to the furthering of the kingdom of 
Jesus Christ. 

2. The preachers made their confession of their experi¬ 
ence of the love of God and their desire for the furthering of his 
kingdom. 

3. We have agreed in outward observances to bear with 
one another, as far as is agreeable with the Word of God. 

4. That we seek our salvation alone in Jesus our only 
Redeemer, and that alone through his meritorious blood we 
must become just before God. 

5. When any one transgresses, he shall be dealt with 
according to Matthew 18:15-17. 

Newcomer and Crum were visiting preachers. Andrew 
Zeller, Troyer, Winters, and Evinger belonged to the Miami 
region. All of the ministers probably had been preachers in 
other parts of the Church, with perhaps the exception of 
Henry Hiestand. The territory occupied by this conference 
might be said to be all the State of Ohio, or all of the territory 
west of the Pennsylvania State line, including Kentucky. 
The conference never really occupied territory east of the 
Muskingum river. 

Before taking leave of Newcomer, we may notice that he 
preached at numerous places in Ohio and Pennsylvania along 
the way of his return home. In Ohio, he preached at a Metho- 


300 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


dist camp-meeting, along with Bishop McKendree. He met 
Asbury on the road, and these two knights of the cross delayed 
their journeying to have a half hour's conversation, and then, 
commending each other to God, went on their way. It is in¬ 
teresting to know, too, that a “little conference" was held in 
western Pennsylvania, serving a local and temporary purpose. 

Inasmuch as the Miami conference is recognized as the 
mother conference to a considerable part of the Church, a 
liberal amount of space justly may be given to an account of 
its beginnings, these beginnings being widely shared by other 
parts of the Church. Such attention may be extended as far 
as to 1815, the time of the first General Conference, this being 
the time limit to which the course of events in the Eastern or 
older parts of the Church already has been traced. 

In 1811, Newcomer did not come to Ohio, and in that 
year no session of the Miami conference was held. However, 
in 1812, Newcomer returned to Ohio and two sessions of the 
Miami conference were held, one in the Miami valley and the 
other in the Scioto region, a few members attending both 
sessions. The following are the minutes of these two sessions: 

August 6, 1812, a conference was held in Montgomery 
county, German township, at Brother Andrew Zeller's. 

The following preachers were present: Christian New¬ 
comer, Andrew Zeller, Daniel Troyer, Thomas Winters, 
William Ambrose, Frederick Klinger, Henry Evinger, William 
P. Smith, Samuel Mau, full ministers; Christian Sherrer, 
preacher; John McNamar, Jacob Kemp, and Peter Weil, 
exhorters. 

The conference was opened with reading of the fourth 
chapter of Second Corinthians by Brother Newcomer, and with 
song and earnest prayer to God. 

Proceedings. 

1. Resolved that a circuit be formed. All showed will¬ 
ingness to further the same. 

2. Thomas Winters, Henry Evinger, and Samuel Mau 
gave themselves up freely to travel the circuit. 

The next day, August 7, the conference assembled, and 
the fifth chapter of Second Corinthians was read by Brother 
Mau, and then singing and prayer. 

1. The preachers were examined, and they confessed love 
to God and union among themselves. 


THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


301 


2. Two brethren were elected by ballot as delegates to 
the conference of the Methodist brethren at Chillicothe, 
namely, Thomas Winters and Daniel Troyer. 

3. Recommended to our societies to observe the last 
Thursday in October as a prayer and fast day, and to implore 
the prosperity and welfare of Zion. 

4. Resolved that the next annual conference shall be 
held the last Thursday in August near New Lancaster. 

5. Andrew Zeller was elected presiding elder for two years. 

6. Resolved that the form of baptism be left to those 
who are to be baptized. 

7. Brothers Jacob Zeller, Frederick Klinger, Henry 
Evinger, and Samuel Mau were appointed to the full perform¬ 
ance of the office of an evangelical preacher. 

8. Christian Sherrer, William Smith, and John Evinger 
were accepted as preachers. 

The third day, August 8, the conference was opened with 
the reading of the first part of the fourteenth chapter of First 
Corinthians by Brother Winters, and singing and prayer. 

1. Peter Weil was advanced to the standing of a full 
minister. 

2. A communication to the Methodist brethren, and 
another to the brethren in Kentucky, were read and approved. 

3. The conference was closed with singing and prayer. 
The above signed in the name of the conference by 

William Smith. 

August 23, 1812, a conference of the United Brethren in 
Christ was held in Fairfield county. 

At the opening of the conference, the fourth chapter of 
Second Timothy was read; then singing, and prayer for the 
furthering of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. 

The following preachers were present: Christian New¬ 
comer, president; George Benedum, Abraham Hiestand, John 
Froshauer, Jacob Zeller, Frederick Klinger, Samuel Mau, 
Lewis Kramer, John Pontius, John Bauser, Dewalt Mechlin, 
John Eckart, and Jacob Lehman. 

Proceedings. 

1. A hearty exhortation to the preachers by the president. 

2. There was an examination of all the preachers, how 
it was with them, and it was found, according to their con¬ 
fession, that they were altogether of one mind to be evermore 
faithful in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ and his kingdom; 
then closed with hearty prayer. 


302 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The 24th, at eight o’clock, the conference was opened 
with the reading of the twelfth chapter of Romans by Brother 
Benedum, and hearty prayer. 

The proceedings as follows: 

1. The examination of the preachers concerning their 
conduct. 

2. On approval of the conference, resolved that Brothers 
Lewis Kramer and Jacob Zeller be received as full ministers. 

3. Resolved that Brothers John Pontius, John Bauser, 
Dewalt Mechlin, and Jacob Lehman be authorized to preach 
on a text, and Brother Eckart to exhort. 

4. Resolved that a circuit in this part of the country be 
formed, for the furthering of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. 
Brother Samuel Mau and Brother Jacob Lehman gave them¬ 
selves with a free will for this service, and were approved by the 
conference. 

5. In the afternoon the conference resumed its session 
after the reading of the third chapter of First John by Brother 
Hiestand and prayer by Brother Jacob Lehman. 

1. Brother George Benedum was chosen presiding elder 
by the conference. 

2. Resolved that spiritual societies or classes be formed, 
and private meetings, with childlike inquiries as to the inner 
condition of the heart. 

3. Resolved that the next annual conference shall be 
held near New Lancaster the last Thursday in August, 1813. 

4. The conference was closed with a childlike exhortation 
by Brother Newcomer to all of the preachers to be faithful, 
with stricter fidelity and uprightness, to the Lord Jesus. Closed 
with a gracious season of prayer. 

Subscribed by Christian Newcomer. 

The minutes of 1813 will give more information and make 
a more immediate impression in regard to the advance in the 
work of the conference than could be given in the same space 
through an independent description. The following are the 
minutes of that year: 

August 26, 1813, a conference of the United Brethren in 
Christ was held at Brother Peter Sites’ in Pleasant township, 
Fairfield county, Ohio. 

The following preachers were assembled: Christian New¬ 
comer, Andrew Zeller, George Benedum, Abraham Hiestand, 
Daniel Troyer, Thomas Winters, Henry Evinger, Lewis 
Kramer, Jacob Zeller, Frederick Klinger, Dewalt Mechlin, 


THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


303 


Henry Hiestand, John Evinger, Henry Miller, William Smith, 
Jacob Lehman, John Pontius, and John Bauser. 

Brother Christian Newcomer, president. 

The conference was begun with singing and prayer that 
God may grant his holy presence for guidance, that every¬ 
thing may be done for his glory and honor and for the welfare 
of the Church. The third chapter of. First Timothy was then 
read, and proceeded to business. 

William Smith was chosen secretary. 

A letter was read from Brother Jacob Baulus, in which 
he stated why he cannot be present. A letter was read from 
Brother John McNamar, asking permission to preach. Granted. 
Also, a letter from Matthias Bortsfield requesting full authority 
as a minister. Granted. 

Then the report of the traveling preachers was taken up. 
Thomas Winters and Henry Evinger, of Twin Creek circuit, 
reported that they had in the last year formed a circuit con¬ 
sisting of forty-seven preaching places, with many other 
requests for preaching. They received salary as follows: 
Thomas Winters, $132.06; paid out, $5.81. Brother Evinger 
received $53.51; paid out, $5.18%. This circuit is divided, 
and the new is made Beaver circuit. Brother Lehman’s re¬ 
port from New Lancaster is, received, $2.81 [$20.81 (?)]. 

A letter from the Albright brethren was read, asking for 
a union. Deferred for consideration till tomorrow. 

The next thing taken into consideration was the mode of 
ordination and of receiving preachers. It was deplored that 
too little order was observed, both in the reception and the 
ordination of preachers. The conference took under considera¬ 
tion whether it is proper to ordain preachers without the laying 
on of hands of the elders. Conference adjourned till tomorrow 
at eight o’clock. 

The 27th, the conference assembled. After the reading 
of a chapter of Titus, singing, and prayer, the matter of writing 
a letter to Father Otterbein was taken up, asking him to 
ordain, by the laying on of hands, one or more preachers, who 
afterward may perform the same for others, and was agreed to. 

Resolved that the next conference shall be held August 24, 
1814, at Andrew Zeller’s. 

William Smith and Henry Miller were authorized to per¬ 
form all the services of ministers. John McNamar, Christian 
Sherrer, and Henry Hiestand were authorized to preach. 
Brother Smaltz was authorized to exhort. 

Afterwards a vote was taken for presiding elders, and An¬ 
drew Zeller and Abraham Hiestand were elected for one year. 


304 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


After prayer adjourned till tomorrow at seven o'clock. 

The 28th. After the reading of a chapter, and singing, 
and prayer, John Eckart, was fully authorized to preach, and 
Philip Kramer to exhort. 

The special case of Henry Hiestand was taken under 
consideration, inasmuch as various unfavorable reports were 
in circulation respecting his life as a preacher, and the con¬ 
ference to which he now belongs examined the matter and 
found that much was false. Other things Henry confessed 
that he was sorry for, and the conference was so far satisfied 
that it gave him permission to preach for one year, and after 
consideration the conference gave to him the right hand as a 
sign of love. 

Brother Newcomer brought a present of $30.00, given by 
Matthias Kessler, of Fredericktown, which, according to his 
wish, was divided out to Brothers Lehman, Troyer, and Win¬ 
ters. Also a collection was taken in the conference, which was 
divided as follows: $2.00 to Brother Zeller, $2.00 to H. Hies¬ 
tand, $10.00 to Brother Newcomer for traveling expenses, and 
$7.81% each to Brothers Winters, Evinger, and Lehman. 
Brother Newcomer, out of the donation, gave to Lehman 
$ 20 . 00 . 

Brother Winters received $5.00 in advance; $126.25 from 
circuit; $10.00 present; $7.81 dividend; total, $149.06. 

Brother Evinger, $48.33*4 from circuit; $7.81 dividend; 
total, $56.1434* 

Brother Lehman, $20.00 present; $10.00 present; $20.8134 
from circuit; $7.8134 dividend; total, $58.6234. 

Resolved that two preachers, Brother Winters and Brother 
D. Troyer, shall preach today at ten o’clock. 

Then it was ordered that the next conference shall be 
held August 23, 1814. 

Then the conference closed with prayer and thanksgiving. 

Jacob Baulus, who is referred to as sending a letter, did 
not remove from his home in Maryland to Sandusky, Ohio, 
until 1822. He may have been contemplating a prospecting 
trip to Ohio, or have been temporarily sojourning in western 
Pennsylvania at this time. John McNamar, who was given an 
exhorter’s license the previous year, began, with his receiving a 
preacher’s license at this session, a most earnest and successful 
career as a minister. He was the first English preacher in the 
conference, and was noted for the number of persons that he 
led into the ministry. Matthias Bortsfield, who requested 


THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


305 


“full authority as a minister,” lived in Tuscarawas county, in 
the territory afterward designated as Muskingum conference 
territory. This is the only example of a Miami conference 
connection with the territory east of Muskingum river, unless 
a further example might be given in this, that in 1822 Miami 
conference appointed two of its preachers to New Philadelphia 
circuit in Tuscarawas county. 

Having noticed the organization of the Miami conference 
as the mother conference in the West, and followed through a 
number of its sessions, we now shall notice as particularly as 
accessible data will permit the beginnings of the work of the 
Church in the different parts of the territory included. 

One of the earliest places of settlement in Ohio by United 
Brethren was on Taylor’s creek, about thirteen miles west of 
Cincinnati. To this place came a number of families from 
Maryland, including members of the Geeting family. Here a 
log church was built as early as 1811, possibly several years 
earlier. It would thus be, as far as known, the first United 
Brethren Church built north of the Ohio river, the Bonebrake 
church near New Hope, Ohio, built in 1815, and the Pfrimmer 
church, near Corydon, Indiana, built in 1818, being the next 
erected. The lot for the Taylor Creek Church was on land 
privately owned, the land for later churches in the community, 
under the name of Zion Church, being deeded later. The 
coming into the community and the work in the society there 
formed, of George Fagley and his wife Rosalia, in 1811, had 
much to do with the success of the local society in the years 
that followed. The Fagleys had come to Cincinnati in 1802. 
On arriving in this country from Germany, they remained in 
Baltimore, Maryland, one year, where Mr. Fagley engaged in 
teaching school. Mrs. Fagley was converted under the preach¬ 
ing of Otterbein, and became a great Christian worker. More 
than a dozen preachers, some of them becoming prominent in 
the work of the Church, came from the Zion class. There is no 
definite indication as to how early the class was formed. 

The most noted center for the United Brethren Church 
in the Miami Valley was Germantown, in Montgomery county. 
In 1804, a colony of twenty-four German families from Berks 


306 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


county, Pennsylvania, came to Montgomery county, nearly 
all of them settling in what came to be German township, 
within the bounds of which Germantown was platted ten years 
later. Many other German families soon found a place in the 
community. In 1805, Andrew Zeller with his family, also 
from Berks county, Pennsylvania, arrived in the community, 
and soon became located on a half section of land lying on 
both sides of the Little Twin creek, and situated a mile and 
a half north of the site of Germantown. As the deed given by 
him shows that he transferred his property in Berks county in 
the spring of 1806, and the deed given him shows that his land 
in Montgomery county was transferred to him in the spring of 
1807, it might seem that his coming to Ohio was more likely in 
1806, but uniform tradition is in favor of the date 1805. In 
view of his previous acquaintance and association with the 
company of Germans arriving in 1804, his coming might easily 
have been in advance of completed business transactions 
especially in advance of records made. He was quite certainly 
a local preacher in Pennsylvania, though the conference 
minutes do not contain his name. Newcomer mentions him 
frequently, but does not refer to him as a preacher. His work 
as a preacher was quite likely local and occasional. The fact 
that the conference minutes do not contain his name would 
have no conclusive bearing, as preachers often were given 
license at a great meeting, or even by individual preachers. 
Newcomer, as late as 1820, ordained three ministers in Fair- 
field county, Ohio, in connection with a sacramental meeting. 
Here, in the house of Andrew Zeller, in 1806, if the date 1805 
as before given is correct, was organized a United Brethren 
class. When Andrew Zeller built his house, he included a 
special room for religious meetings, which sometimes was 
called a chapel or meeting house. Henry Kumler, in Butler 
county, did likewise, and later Joseph Hoffman, within the 
present limits of Dayton, had two rooms so constructed that 
they could be thrown together to accommodate religious 
meetings. These examples may explain why it was that church 
buildings generally came so late. In the first twelve years of 
the history of Miami conference, about one third of the sessions 


THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


307 


were held at Andrew Zeller's. Daniel Troyer, who entered the 
work of the ministry in Maryland, settled in German town¬ 
ship in 1806. Whether Zeller and Troyer as preachers were 
instrumental in the organization of the class near Cincinnati 
earlier than the class was formed in Zeller's house, cannot be 
decided. Certainly, they were the pioneer preachers of the 
Miami valley. The church at Germantown was built in 1829, 
and in Germantown were held the General Conferences of 
1837 and 1849. 

Dewalt Bonebrake came to Preble county, Ohio, the next 
county west of Montgomery, in the spring of 1807. Not long 
afterward, he heard of preachers not far away, whom he took 
to be United Brethren preachers, as their preaching as reported 
was similar to that of the United Brethren preachers in Penn¬ 
sylvania with whom he had some acquaintance. He sent two 
of his sons to bring the preachers to his place, and in 1808 a 
United Brethren class was formed at a meeting in his barn, 
said to be the third class formed in the Miami valley. A log 
church was erected in 1815, on land owned by one of his sons 
one half mile east of New Hope. The preachers referred to 
must have been the preachers from the vicinity of Germantown. 
Six of Dewalt Bonebrake's eleven sons became preachers, all 
of them useful, and some of them prominent in the work of the 
Church. 

A special addition to the German constituency of Mont¬ 
gomery county was made when, in 1805, ninety-six Mary¬ 
landers, including women and children, settled a few miles 
east of Dayton. Included in the company were Kemp, Leh¬ 
man, and other families from United Brethren communities 
in Maryland. These people gave a warm welcome to New¬ 
comer as a preacher and visitor. 

Thomas Winters, who had been recognized as a preacher 
since 1799, became in 1809 an accession to the force of preachers 
in the Miami valley. When Henry Evinger, residing near Cin¬ 
cinnati, began the work of preaching is not known. In con¬ 
nection with his visits to the Miami region, Newcomer preached 
in Dayton, Springfield, and Xenia, preaching in courthouses, 
churches and private houses. Thus, the Miami valley, with a 


308 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


large German population, furnished a needy and inviting field, 
and the German preachers were becoming sufficiently numerous 
and active to enter on the work of gathering the harvest. 

We now turn to a second important center for the work 
of the United Brethren Church, that made up especially by 
Fairfield, Pickaway, and Ross counties in Ohio. In these 
counties there were many Germans. Lancaster, or New Lan¬ 
caster, the county seat of Fairfield county, was so named from 
Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, in consequence of the number 
of early settlers coming from that county. The eastern part 
of Pickaway county likewise had a large German population. 
Ross county had a smaller proportion of Germans, but yet 
there were in that county a considerable number of Germans 
who had been connected with the United Brethren in Penn¬ 
sylvania. While it is convenient to speak of this section as the 
Scioto region, Fairfield county, which was the first center of 
activity for the United Brethren Church, is chiefly in the valley 
of the Hocking river. We recall that, when Newcomer came 
to Ohio in 1810, the first United Brethren upon whom he 
called were the two preachers, Abraham Hiestand and George 
Benedum, the one on the one side and the other on the other 
side of Lancaster in Fairfield county. Of the two, Abraham 
Hiestand undoubtedly came first, having come in 1804, in 
company with several brothers, Jacob, John, Joseph, and 
Samuel among the number. Jacob, the father, was drowned 
in the Shenandoah river in Virginia. The Hiestands came 
from Page county, Virginia. In their early history, the family 
had been connected with the Moravians. Abraham is noted 
by Spayth as one of the absent preachers at the time of the 
conference in 1800. He probably did some preaching soon 
after coming to Ohio, but it was the later coming of George 
Benedum, who had been an active preacher in Pennsylvania, 
that fully launched the work of the Church in Fairfield and 
surrounding counties. He became a preacher in 1794. He 
was present at the sessions of the Old conference in 1803 and 
1805. He was living in Pennsylvania in January, 1806. He 
obtained a title to land in Fairfield county July 10, 1806, and 
from this time seems to have resided and also to have preached 


THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


309 


in this county, though his residing in Pennsylvania was not 
entirely given up. Newcomer speaks of preaching in his house 
in Pennsylvania in February, 1808; and in May, 1809, he was 
present at the Old conference for the last time. Whatever may 
be the explanation, something of residence and work in Ohio 
seems sure from about 1806. Lewis Kramer, Dewalt Mechlin, 
John Smaltz, and Samuel Hiestand are said to have been con¬ 
verted and led into the ministry by him. But of these persons 
only Lewis Kramer was a minister in 1810. The zeal and 
success of Benedum are attested by the large increase of the 
United Brethren Church in Fairfield county. The General 
conferences of 1821 and 1829 were held in this county, and that 
of 1841 exactly on the line between Fairfield and Pickaway 
counties. 

A new field was opened up, or an old field was extended by 
the moving, in 1808, of Rev. John G. Pfrimmer to Harrison 
county, Indiana, in the extreme southern part of the State. 
The year before, he made the trip to this country on horse¬ 
back from Washington county, Pennsylvania, selected land 
for a home about five miles east of Corydon, and left money to 
pay for the same. His new home was more than one hundred 
miles west of the Ohio line. While he did not forget or neglect 
his commission to preach as he had opportunity, for six years, 
he was entirely without connection with the work of the 
Church in Ohio. In 1814, however, he came to the session of 
the conference at Andrew Zeller’s, in Montgomery county, 
Ohio, and announced that thereafter he would be a member of 
the Miami conference, and for a number of years was the 
secretary of the conference. 

In consequence of his part in founding the Church in 
Indiana, and of his place in the Sunday-school history of the 
Church, we may give special attention to the outstanding 
features of his life and work. The epitaph on the slab at the 
head of his tomb is as follows: “John George Pfrimmer, 
born in France, July 24, 1762; emigrated to America in 1788, 
moved to Indiana in 1808; died Sept. 5, 1825. Deceased 
established the first United Brethren societies in Indiana.” 
The place of his birth was near Strasburg, in the “lost provinces” 


310 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


recently restored to France. He studied surgery, and entered 
the French navy when he was twenty years of age. In an 
engagement in which the French navy was defeated, he re¬ 
ceived a saber cut in the face, which somewhat disfigured him 
for life. He came to America in 1788, bringing as his bride a 
young woman whom he married in Switzerland. He fell in 
with the United Brethren, and was converted about 1790, 
and at once commenced preaching. He had a fair education, 
both in French and in German. He was present at the con¬ 
ferences of 1791 and 1800. For May 21, 1800, Newcomer 
recorded: “Today I came to Brother Pfrimmer's. About 
thirty children had assembled at his house to whom he was 
giving religious instruction. Some were under conviction. I 
also spoke to them. Their hearts were sensibly touched. May 
the Lord convert them truly.” At this time, he was residing 
at some point north of Harrisburg. About 1792, he seems to 
have resided and preached in Union county. He is spoken of as 
preaching at different times under a tree on the banks of the 
Susquehanna. In the spring of 1801, he was residing in Harris¬ 
burg. Later in that year, he removed to Washington county, 
Pennsylvania. Here his preaching assumed a wide range,and 
was attended with large success. In 1807, as before related, he 
went on horseback to the Territory of Indiana to prospect with 
reference to locating there. At that time, there were fewer 
than twelve thousand whites within the present limits of 
Indiana. The next year, with his family and household pos¬ 
sessions, he moved to his new home. He and others bought a 
flatboat at Pittsburgh that carried them and their possessions 
to Clarksville, opposite Louisville, Kentucky, whence a short 
journey brought them to their new home, about five miles 
east of Corydon. General William Henry Harrison, the 
governor of the Territory since its organization in 1800, saw in 
Mr. Pfrimmer the craftsman such as was needed in organizing 
and developing the new Territory, and appointed him one of 
the three common pleas judges upon whom devolved a large 
amount of responsibility in organizing Harrison county and 
otherwise providing for the development of the new territory. 
In 1810, Mr. Pfrimmer moved to Harrison Mills, where he 


THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


311 


operated for a few years the mills of Governor Harrison lo¬ 
cated there. During these years, while engaged as farmer, 
doctor, judge, and miller, he found occasional opportunity for 
preaching. Some of these occupations he soon left behind, or 
came to give to them a less amount of attention. He continued 
to serve as a doctor, traveling sometimes forty miles to visit 
his patients. But, again comparatively free, he reported for 
service at the Miami conference, which convened in 1814 at 
Andrew Zeller's, near Germantown, Ohio. Nor did he come 
empty handed. He brought with him a new field opened up 
by six years of faithful labor and worthy example. From this 
time, he was closely identified with all of the work of the 
Church. 

It might be stated that, along with Mr. Pfrimmer’s various 
gifts and attainments, was the ability to compose music 
adapted to hymns. He probably took into what became the 
State of Indiana the first piano brought within its bounds. 

A record in the “deed book" of Harrison county, Indiana, 
would seem to connect Mr. Pfrimmer with slave-holding. It 
is as follows: “Know all men by these presents, that I, John 
Elliott, of the county of Knox, and Indiana Territory, have 
for, and in consideration of, the sum of four hundred dollars 
to me in hand paid at or before the ensealing and delivery here, 
and do by these presents bargain and sell unto John George 
Pfrimmer, of the county of Harrison, in said Territory, a 
certain negro woman named Betty, with her mulatto child 
named Selina, which said negro and child was purchased of 
my father, Robert Elliot, of the said county of Knox, by bill 
of sale dated on the seventh of January last past, which said 
bill of sale, with its conditions and assurances, I do hereby 
guarantee unto said Pfrimmer, his heirs and assigns, and will 
by these presents warrant and defend. Given under my hand 
and seal in the said County of Harrison, this sixteenth day of 
February, 1811. John Elliott." The name of William Henry 
Harrison and Henry Rice are attached. This incident may 
help to take us back to the conditions of the early years of the 
preceding century. There were cases of slavery in Indiana 
down to 1830, notwithstanding the provision against slavery 


312 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


in the act of 1787 for the organization of the Northwest 
Territory and in the constitution of Indiana adopted in 1816. 
In Pennsylvania, with progressive emancipation adopted in 
1780, sixty-four slaves still were held in legal bondage in 1840. 
Slavery v/as not completely abolished in New York until 
1827. The slave-purchase by Pfrimmer in 1811 was in the 
time v/hen he was operating General Harrison's mills and 
occupied in other secular lines, and it easily is seen how he 
might have been swerved from his own deepest personal con¬ 
victions and the prevailing sentiments of his religious asso¬ 
ciates. Slavery never could have been rigorous in Indiana, 
not even as much so as in the neighboring “old Kentucky 
home" of Nellie Gray. 

Next after Indiana we naturally think of Kentucky. In 
the early references to the fields occupied by the United 
Brethren Church, Kentucky was named first. But the earliest 
work in Kentucky faded out almost completely. Benedict 
Schwope, Otterbein's predecessor in Baltimore went to 
Kentucky at an early day. He with others from Maryland 
located between Frankfort and Lexington, Kentucky. Asbury, 
who visited the locality in 1810, wrote: “I learn that Benedict 
Schwope, my old acquaintance, died last winter. He was a 
man of more than common mind and gifts, and might have 
been much more useful than I fear he was." Newcomer, who 
visited the locality in 1816, says, without mentioning Schwope: 
“We visited Baker and Huber, held a meeting, and lodged with 
Jacob Rohrer." Another place at which some beginnings must 
have been made was at or near Louisville, in which locality 
John Evinger lived. He was a member of Miami conference, 
beginning with 1813. He, however, does not seem to have 
been very active, and was admonished by the conference. In 
his travels through Kentucky, Newcomer met many that 
might be understood to be members of the Church, though 
probably they were not enrolled in any class. Good leaders or 
good work in connection with the early beginnings would not 
have failed to hand down some substantial and enduring 
results. 


THE ADVANCE WESTWARD 


313 


This chapter may be closed with the giving of the minutes 
of Miami conference for the year 1814, inasmuch as these 
minutes look toward the organization and work of the first 
General Conference. 

August 23, 1814, at Brother Andrew Zeller’s, in Mont¬ 
gomery county, Ohio, the time and place appointed, a confer¬ 
ence of the United Brethren in Christ was held. 

The following preachers were present: Christian New¬ 
comer, Bishop; Andrew Zeller, Abraham Hiestand, George 
Benedum, Daniel Troyer, Henry Evinger, Henry Hiestand, 
Jacob Zeller, John Evinger, Jacob Lehman, Philip Kramer, 
John McNamar, Henry Miller, William P. Smith, Jacob 
Kemp. 

After the reading of the twelfth chapter of Romans, sing¬ 
ing, and prayer, the following proceedings were taken up: 

1. Examination of the preachers, then adjourned with 
singing and prayer, till tomorrow morning at seven o’clock. 

Wednesday, the 24th, assembled according to adjournment. 

Brother George Benedum and Brother A. Hiestand 
preached very suitably to the occasion. 

Resolved that when any one speaks he shall stand up and 
address the president. 

Then the questions, according to the rules, were followed 
through. 

Jacob Kemp was authorized to preach. 

Henry Hiestand was authorized to preach and to admin¬ 
ister the ordinances; also John McNamar and Jacob Lehman. 

The present order [or discipline] of the Church was taken 
under consideration and protested against. i 

It was moved and adopted that there shall be a conven¬ 
tion, and that two members from each district shall assemble 
at Abraham Troxel’s, in Westmoreland county. The districts 
were arranged as follows: First district, Baltimore; second, 
Hagerstown; third, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, south of the Alle¬ 
gheny Mountains; fourth, Pennsylvania, north of the Alle¬ 
gheny Mountains; fifth, Muskingum; sixth, New Lancaster, 
Ohio; seventh, Miami; eighth, Kentucky and Indiana; ninth, 
Virginia. The delegates shall come together November 22; 
the time, however, was set forward to June, next year. This 
convention shall form a church-constitution for the Brethren. 


*The reference is to the discipline adopted earlier in the year by the old conference. This 
is the second appearance of the term “Church" in the minutes, the first being in the minutes 
of 1813. 



314 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Brother Winters declared that henceforth he would no 
longer belong to the Brotherhood, and was dismissed. 

Brother John George Pfrimmer announced himself as a 
member of this conference and was unanimously recognized. 

Brother Troyer offered to travel for a half year. 

Brother Lehman offered to travel for a fourth of a year. 

The next conference the Tuesday after the second Sunday 
in August next year. 

The presiding elders were next elected. Brother Andrew 
Zeller and Daniel Troyer [were nominated] for the Miami 
District, and Brother George Benedum and Abraham Hiestand 
for New Lancaster District. According to the votes Andrew 
Zeller for Miami District and G. Benedum for New Lancaster 
District were elected and confirmed. 

The itinerant plan was anew unanimously agreed to. 

The collection of hymns for a new hymn book by T. Win¬ 
ters and Henry Evinger is postponed till the next General 
Conference. 

A letter from the Methodist conference was read relating 
to a closer union, and an answer given which was sent through 
Brothers Evinger and Smith. Acknowledged our desire for a 
union according to the order of the gospel. 

Brothers A. Hiestand and A. Zeller were appointed to 
settle with the traveling preachers. 

Jacob Zeller proposed the formation of a new circuit, and 
the conference ordered him to do it. 

Brother Evinger promised to do what he could in view of 
his weakness. 

Brothers Andrew Zeller, Henry Miller, W. P. Smith, and 
J. McNamar agreed to travel Twin Creek circuit. 

At the close, settlement was made with the traveling 
preachers according to their service. 

The conference adjourned till next year. 

Christian Newcomer. 


CHAPTER VI. 

THE FIRST TWO GENERAL CONFERENCES 


Occasion for a General Conference—Minutes of the Conference of 1815— 
The Confession and Discipline—The Delegates—Conference of 
1817—Minutes of Conference of 1817. 


r HE chief subjects of this chapter will be the convening 
and acts of the first two General Conferences. The 
Old conference in the East was under the impression 
that it was the first and last authority in the Church 
in determining its policies and directing its work. Little con¬ 
ferences were held here and there at different times, but they 
were for temporary or local purposes. The Old conference said 
and did nothing in regard to the work in Ohio, or in regard to 
the conference there formed until 1812, when the following 
action was taken: “Resolved that Brother Christian New¬ 
comer be given authority to hold a conference with the preachers 
in the Ohio district.” The preachers in Ohio evidently ex¬ 
pected the conference held in Ohio in 1810 to be the first in a 
regular succession of conferences. Yet Newcomer did not 
visit this field in 1811, and no conference was held. The old 
conference was engaged seriously in the work of discipline¬ 
making in 1812 and 1813. There is good ground for believing 
that a form of Discipline was submitted for consideration in 
1812, that it was relatively complete before the conference of 
1813, and that this Discipline was approved in 1814, or at 
least submitted to the judgment of the Church. It is to be 
noted that it was in this period, 1812 and 1813, when the 
definite and full name, “The United Brethren in Christ,” 
first appeared in conference minutes. 

Here now comes the rub. According to the statement 
already quoted in the minutes of the conference in Ohio of 
August 23, 1814, that conference was dissatisfied with the 
Discipline adopted by the old conference in 1813 and perhaps 
somewhat modified and more fully ratified in May, 1814. It 


315 


316 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


hardly can be supposed that the members of the conference 
were opposed to all discipline as were some of the members of 
the old conference, for with them church elements were more 
readily accepted. They may have been opposed to some of 
the statements in the Discipline, or, what is more likely, they 
may have been dissatisfied because they had had nothing to 
do with the forming of the Discipline, and in the Discipline 
were given no part in the administration of affairs, or recog¬ 
nition of any kind apart from being loosely connected with the 
old conference. The minutes of the Ohio conference for 1814, 
including the protest of that conference against the Discipline 
adopted, and also including the plan for a General Conference, 
already have been quoted in full. If the members of the 
conference felt themselves left out in the adoption of the first 
Discipline, they now seem to have left out the mother confer¬ 
ence in taking the initiative step toward a General Conference. 
The postponment of the conference or convention to the 
following year may have been by an amendment adopted at 
the time, or have been determined later better to suit the Old 
conference. 

The harmony with which the arrangements went into 
effect likely was due largely to the large-hearted guidance of 
Newcomer and the devotion of the preachers in general to a 
common purpose. The districts named indicated well the 
field occupied by the Church. The delegates likely were 
chosen in a quite informal way. 

As to the place for the conference, there could have been 
no difference of opinion. Only Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania, 
could meet all requirements. The East and the West could 
come together in western Pennsylvania, and no other place in 
western Pennsylvania had the advantages that Mount Pleasant 
had. On the east and south, advantage could be taken of the 
highways already described. On the west, various crossings 
of the Ohio river were available. On a part of his way to 
Mount Pleasant, Newcomer had the company of Henry 
Kumler, John Snyder, Jacob Baulus, Isaac Niswander,|and 
Abraham Mayer. It scarcely is necessary to say that the 


FIRST TWO GENERAL CONFERENCES 317 


preachers in this period, almost without exception, traveled 
on horseback. 

Of the eighteen delegates authorized for the convention, 
or General Conference, fourteen presented themselves at the 
time and place appointed. Joseph Hoffman, representing 
Baltimore, would have been present as a delegate, but was de¬ 
tained at home by sickness. These delegates met June 6, 1815, 
in Bonnet's schoolhouse, near Mount Pleasant. Some of the 
sessions may have been held in the home of Abraham Troxel. 
Newcomer presided as Bishop. Abraham Hiestand was 
chosen assistant to the Bishop. Jacob Baulus was made sec¬ 
retary. The o'd spirit of opposition to order and discipline 
asserted itself anew. The following is Newcomer's record: 
“This day the General Conference commenced at old Brother 
Troxel's. May the Lord have mercy on us. Instead of love 
and unanimity, the spirit of hatred and discord seemed to 

prevail.-7, this day we met again. Bless the Lord, the heat 

had considerably abated, and the business before us was con¬ 
ducted better than I had expected." 

The following are the minutes entire of this first session of 
the General Conference: 

This, the sixth of June, 1815, the following preachers 
assembled for the General Conference near Mount Pleasant, 
Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania: Christian Newcomer, 
Abraham Hiestand, Andrew Zeller, Daniel Troyer, George 
Benedum, Christian Crum, Isaac Niswander, Henry Spayth, 
John Snyder, Abraham Mayer, Henry Kumler, Abraham 
Troxel, Christian Berger and Jacob Baulus. These persons 
were elected from the various districts to the General Confer¬ 
ence. Brother Abraham Hiestand v/as chosen to assist the 
Bishop in the conference. The conference was opened with 
the reading of the fifth chapter of First Peter, then singing, 
and then prayer by the most of the members. Then proceeded 
to business. There was misunderstanding and prejudice on 
the part of some, but this was removed in part. A letter from 
Christopher Grosh, coming from their so-called conference, 
was read. It was evident therefrom that they had not con¬ 
sidered the matter of which they wrote. Brother Newcomer 
was accused by Bonnet that he was untruthful. The matter 
was investigated by three presiding elders and it was found 


318 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


that there was only a misunderstanding. He was in nothing 
liable to accusation. 

The Confession of Faith and the Discipline were con¬ 
sidered, in some respects enlarged, some things omitted, on the 
whole improved, and ordered printed. 

Jacob Baulus, Secretary . 

The last paragraph represents the real work of the con¬ 
ference. The previously existing Confession and Discipline 
were revised and ordered printed. They are given as thus 
revised in what is called the Discipline of 1815, which, however, 
was not printed until 1816. The Discipline as published could 
not be said to have been formally adopted, but was in a sense 
submitted for the informal acceptance of the Church. 

The difficulties in the conference were with reference to 
having a Discipline, or the extent to which a Discipline should 
go. Bonnet's accusation of Newcomer doubtless grew out of 
the feeling that the informal understandings as to association 
with the Mennonites and others had been disregarded. The 
time had come when the eggs no longer could be scrambled. 

There are three outstanding errors in the usual state¬ 
ments as to the General Conference of 1815. The first is the 
statement that Andrew Zeller was elected chairman, whereas 
Abraham Hiestand was elected chairman. The second is the 
statement that H. G. Spayth was secretary, whereas Jacob 
Baulus was secretary, with Spayth likely as assistant. The 
third is the recurring statement that Andrew Zeller was elected 
Bishop, there being no occasion for the election of Bishops at 
this time as will hereafter be shown. 

The following is the Confession of Faith as revised by the 
conference: 

In the name of God we confess before all men, that we 
believe in the only true God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; 
that these three are one, the Father in the Son, the Son in the 
Father, and the Holy Ghost equal in essence with both; that 
this triune God created heaven and earth, and all that in them 
is, visible as well as invisible, sustains, governs, protects, and 
supports the same. 

We believe in Jesus Christ; that he is very God and man; 
that he, by the Holy Ghost, assumed his human nature in 


FIRST TWO GENERAL CONFERENCES 319 


Mary, and was born of her ; that he is the Savior and Redeemer 
of the whole human race, if they with faith in him accept the 
grace proffered in Jesus; that this Jesus suffered and died on 
the cross for us, was buried, rose again on the third day, 
ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God to 
intercede for us; and that he shall come again at the last day, 
to judge the living and the dead. 

We believe in the Holy Ghost; that he is equal in being 
with the Father and the Son; that he proceeds from both; that 
we are through him enlightened; through faith justified and 
sanctified. 

We believe in a holy church, communion of saints, resur¬ 
rection of the flesh, and a life everlasting. 

We believe that the Bible, Old and New Testament, is 
the word of God; that it contains the true way to our salvation; 
that every true Christian is bound to receive it with the in¬ 
fluences of the Spirit of God, as his only rule, and that without 
faith in Jesus Christ, true penitence, forgiveness of sins, and 
following after Christ, no one can be a true Christian. 

We believe that the doctrine which the Holy Scriptures 
contain, namely, the fall in Adam and the redemption through 
Jesus Christ, shall be preached throughout the whole world. 

We believe that the outward means of grace are to be in 
use in all Christian societies, namely, that baptism and the 
remembrance of the death of the Lord in the distribution of 
the bread and wine are to be in use among his children, accord¬ 
ing to the command of the Lord Jesus; the mode and manner, 
however, shall be left to the judgment of every one. Also, 
the example of feet-washing remains free to every one. 

The earlier form of the Confession of Faith, as being 
produced when the cooperation and influence of Otterbein 
were so largely determining in the Church, certainly received 
much of its spirit and character from him. It bears the im¬ 
press of one familiar with the historic creeds. The Confession 
as revised retained the characteristics of the earlier Confes¬ 
sion. The Confession of 1815 declares liberty in the manner 
of observing the sacraments, and makes various minor changes 
of no great significance. Liberty as to the mode of baptism 
dates from a much earlier period. 

The Discipline in general, as compared with the transla¬ 
tion of the Methodist Discipline from the English into the 
German made in 1808, presents a number of similarities in the 


320 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


terms and titles used. Like conditions had shaped the develop¬ 
ment of the two churches. Dissimilarities, however, are 
distinctly marked. By the United Brethren Discipline, the 
members of the Church were to elect the delegates to the 
General Conference, and had control of their local affairs. 
Likewise, the ministers were given a large measure of discre¬ 
tion and authority in what pertained to their office and work. 
Even down to this time, the government of the Church may be 
called composite, combining episcopal, presbyterial, and con¬ 
gregational features. Probably no other church includes these 
features in a more just equipoise than does the United Brethren 
Church. 

Bishops are elected for a term of four years and not for 
life. On the other hand, the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 
its early history, was quite the contrast of these several fea¬ 
tures. 

We are not to judge the members of this first General 
Conference by the meagerness of the minutes handed down, or 
the scanty material available for a sketch of their lives. They 
were men of devout hearts, strong common sense, most of 
them with little training in the schools, but all of them men 
of might through their abandonment to their work. They were 
worthy representatives of the Church in their day. Of some 
of those of whom an account has not already been given some 
interesting facts are available. 

Daniel Troyer was born in Maryland, and was spiritually 
awakened under a sermon preached by Otterbein. He was a 
recognized member of the conference in 1805, and in 1806 
came to Ohio and settled in the Miami valley, near German¬ 
town. He became a member of the Miami conference at its 
organization in 1810. Henry Garst says of him: “As a preach¬ 
er, he was a man of power. He had a very strong voice and 
great zeal.” He died in 1863, at the age of ninety-four. George 
Benedum, more than anyone else, contributed to the building 
up of the Church in the Scioto region. He combined great 
fervor with splendid poise and perseverance. He became a 
member of the Old conference in 1803, and was a charter 
member of Miami conference in 1810. He died in 1837. 







BISHOP D. K. FLICKINGEIl 



BISHOP J. DICKSON 







BISHOP E. B. KEPHART 



BISHOP T. C. CARTER 


BISHOP J. S. MILLS 
































FIRST TWO GENERAL CONFERENCES 321 


Henry Spayth we shall meet at many a turn. He was born in 
Wurtemburg, Germany, in 1788, and came with his parents to 
America when about three years of age. He became an itinerant 
preacher in 1812. He had excellent qualities as a preacher, 
and was a trusted counselor in the affairs of the Church. He 
is especially known as the first historian of the Church. He 
was closely associated with the fathers of the Church. He 
died in 1873. John Snyder was born in the Kingdom of 
Prussia in 1768, was brought up in the German Reformed 
church, and received a good education in German. He came 
to America in 1792. In 1803, he settled in Perry county, 
Pennsylvania. He was converted and began to conduct 
religious meetings in his own community, and in 1809 was 
received into the conference in the East. He was a preacher 
of unusual ability. From 1817 to 1825 he was the pastor of 
Otterbein’s congregation in Baltimore. He died in 1845. 
Henry Kumler, afterward Bishop, joined the Old conference 
in 1814, and at once plunged into the work with such decision 
and energy that he was the next year made a delegate to the 
General Conference. More will be said of him later. Abraham 
Hiestand was of Moravian descent. He was a pioneer preacher 
in the Scioto region, was assistant chairman of the first General 
Conference, and later continued his ministerial work in the 
State of Indiana. He died in 1848, in Harrison county, In¬ 
diana. He was a brother of Bishop Samuel Hiestand. Surely, 
fourteen men of the known character and experience of the 
delegates to this first General Conference might be expected, 
in five working days, along with what had been accomplished 
before, to^deliver to the Church a good basis for future work 
and growth. 

In view of the differences of opinion existing among the 
members of the General Conference of 1815, as indicated both 
by Newcomer and Spayth, and the fact that the Discipline 
as adopted would have to go to trial before the people, it is 
not strange that the next General Conference was arranged to 
convene in two years instead of four, as the Discipline itself 
provided. Another reason was the fact that the Old conference 
had in 1814 elected Newcomer Bishop for three years, which 


322 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


would extend his term to 1817. Without an election, he 
served as presiding officer of the conference of 1815, and filled 
out his term of service till 1817. 

The second General Conference met at Mount Pleasant, 
Pennsylvania, June 2, 1817. Twelve delegates were present. 
The session continued through three days. Only minor modi¬ 
fications were made in the Discipline delivered to the Church 
in 1815. That there yet was opposition to a settled Discipline 
is indicated by the following from Newcomer's Journal: 
“Our General Conference commenced in Mount Pleasant. 
We had considerable difficulty with a few of the brethren to 
convince them of the necessary discipline and regulation in 
society; they would not come into any order or regulation, and 
still desired others to coincide with them. The difficulty was 
at last surmounted." In the early history of the Church, a 
unanimous concurrence was sought in the decisions that were 
reached. Thus an obstreperous minority could have almost 
its own way. 

By action of the Conference, Muskingum conference was 
authorized, embracing several counties of western Pennsylvania 
and the eastern part of Ohio. In this part of Ohio the Church 
was not strong. It was, however, already planted within the 
borders of Ohio as far as Tuscarawas and Stark counties. 

It has been said that Newcomer and Zeller were elected 
Bishops in 1815. Newcomer then served as chairman without 
being elected, and, as before indicated, served the following 
two years as Bishop without the formality of a reelection. 
It is certain that Zeller was not elected in 1815. Abraham 
Hiestand, and not Zeller, was assistant chairman in the con¬ 
ference of that year. Zeller did not attend either of the ses¬ 
sions of the conference in the East in the interval of the two 
sessions of the General Conference. At the session of the 
Miami conference of 1816, Newcomer is named as Bishop, 
with John G. Pfrimmer as assistant, and the minutes are 
signed by “Christian Newcomer, Bishop." In 1816, Zeller 
was regularly elected presiding elder, and he quite certainly 
served in a similar capacity the previous year. The following 
action of Miami conference in 1815, about three weeks after 


FIRST TWO GENERAL CONFERENCES 323 


the General Conference, supports the position taken as to 
Zeller, and at the same time shows the growing tendency 
toward churchly character and customs: "The question was 
considered whether it would not be well for some of the older 
brethren to be ordained with the laying on of hands by the 
Bishop, so that in case of death this biblical ordination might 
remain with us; and a committee was appointed, consisting of 
Brothers Christian Newcomer, Christian Crum, Abraham 
Hiestand, George Benedum, and Andrew Zeller. The commit¬ 
tee was unanimous that first Christian Crum should be or¬ 
dained, and that he then should assist Brother Newcomer, the 
Bishop, in ordaining the following brethren: Abraham Hie¬ 
stand, Henry Miller, Daniel Troyer, Andrew Zeller, George 
Benedum, William P. Smith, and John George Pfrimmer, all 
of which, with song and earnest calling on God in prayer, with 
many tears, was sacredly done.” The Discipline of 1815 
provided for the ordination of Bishops and elders. 

At the first session of the Miami conference after the 
General Conference of 1817, in the language of the minutes, 
"Brother Andrew Zeller was ordained Bishop and consecrated 
with the laying on of hands by Bishop Newcomer and Elders 
Hoffman, Benedum, and Pfrimmer, with a blessed experience 
of the grace of God.” 

The Discipline of 1817 likewise provided for the ordina¬ 
tion of Bishops and elders, but instead of giving a form for the 
ordination of elders gave a form for the ordaining of preachers. 
The Discipline as printed in German in 1819, in the form for 
ordination, used the language, “Take thou authority to execute 
the office of an elder (or minister) in the church of God.” The 
word in German for minister is Diener which means the same as 
minister, one serving, but it was sometimes taken, on slight 
occasion, as if it were Diaconus. Consequently there were a 
number of cases of the ordination of deacons following the 
General Conference session of 1817. But when the General 
Conference in 1825 discontinued the ordination of Bishops 
the ordination of deacons ceased. 

The four independent allusions that we have all speak of 
the conference of 1817 as being held at Mount Pleasant or 


324 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


in Mount Pleasant; none of them refer to the Bonnet school- 


house. 


The minutes of the General Conference of 1817 are so 
short that they are given here entire: 

Proceedings of the second General Conference, held at 
Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania, June 2, 1817. 

The United Brethren in Christ assembled in a General 
Conference. 

The following preachers were present: 


Jacob Dehof 
L. Kramer 
D. Mechlin 
H. G. Spayth 
C. Roth 


C. Newcomer 
Andrew Zeller 
Abraham Mayer 
Joseph Hoffman 
John Snyder 
H. Kumler 


H. Ow 


1. The conference was opened with the reading of the 
fourth chapter of Ephesians, singing, and prayer. 

2. Andrew Zeller was chosen associate chairman, and 
H. Spayth, secretary. 

3. Two letters were read, one from brethren in Washing¬ 
ton county, Pennsylvania, and the other from brethren in New 
Philadelphia, Ohio. Resolved to give them a brotherly 
answer. 

Closed for this day, with hearty prayer, till tomorrow at 
eight o'clock. 

June 3, opened with the reading of the second chapter of 
Ephesians, singing, and prayer. 

4. Resolved to give to Brother Abraham Forney license. 
To this end he was solemnly ordained to the ministerial office 
by Brothers C. Newcomer and A. Zeller with the laying on of 
hands. Further, 

5. Brother C. Newcomer and Brother A. Zeller were, 
according to the Discipline, chosen bishops. 

Adjourned at noon with prayer. 

At two o'clock the thirteenth chapter of Hebrews was 
read, then singing and prayer, and again closed with prayer 
till next day. 

June 4. At the opening, the ninth chapter of Romans was 
read, then singing and prayer. 

6. Resolved that the next General Conference shall be 
held at Dewalt Mechlin's, in Pleasant township, Fairfield 
county, Ohio, beginning May 15, 1821. 

7. Resolved that an annual conference shall be held in 
the Muskingum district, beginning June 1, 1818. 


FIRST TWO GENERAL CONFERENCES 325 


8. Resolved that three hundred Disciplines be printed 
in the German language, and one hundred in the English 
language. 

The conference again closed with preaching and hearty- 
prayer. 




CHAPTER VII. 
PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 


Eastern Ohio—Minutes of Muskingum Conference—General Conference 
of 1821—Slavery—Ardent Spirits—Slow Awakening—Bishops Zeller 
and Hoffman—General Conference of 1825—Ordination of Bishops 
Discontinued—Bishop Henry Kumler—General Conference 
of 1829—New Conferences—Methodist Protestants— 
Newcomer’s Death—General Conference of 1833— 

New Conferences—Printing Establishment— 

Bishops Hiestand and Brown. 


wmJ HERE are several reasons for making 1837 the time 
B limit for this period. From 1830 to 1837, the use of 
-A- the English language was becoming preponderant over 
the use of the German language. Then, the closing 
years of this period were coincident with the rapid division of 
conferences. Then again, in 1834, the Religious Telescope 
made its appearance, and other sources of information as to 
the work of the Church began to multiply. Further, the en¬ 
tire period preceding 1837 might be described as the pre-con¬ 
stitutional period, constitution-making beginning in that year. 

In this period the Church was gradually enlarging its 
territory, increasing its membership, and developing and 
strengthening its inner organization. We may first give our 
attention to the planting of the Church in eastern Ohio, this 
being a part of the territory belonging to the new conference 
authorized by the General Conference of 1817, under the 
name of the Muskingum conference. 

The later beginning and slower progress of the work of the 
Church in eastern Ohio, as compared with the progress made 
in some other parts of the State, may be accounted for by the 
manner in which eastern Ohio was settled. The seven ranges 
of townships adjoining the Pennsylvania line, though offered 
for sale in 1778, were not occupied by settlers to any great 
extent before the period from 1795 to 1800, and among the 
settlers coming then and for some time afterward there were 


327 


328 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


few Germans. The settlement promoted by the Ohio Company 
at Marietta in 1788, beginning as the first white settlement in 
Ohio, was made up of people from New England. In the 
north was the Western Reserve, settled largely by New Eng¬ 
landers; also between the “seven ranges” and the Scioto river 
were the military or bounty lands, which drew settlers from 
everywhere. The Germans, though slower in coming, soon 
began to establish themselves in all parts, especially in what 
now are Harrison, Tuscarawas, and Stark counties, and in the 
territory adjacent. Some had made western Pennsylvania a 
half-way resting point, but many came directly from eastern 
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. Some, in their earlier 
locations, were connected with the United Brethren. 

Our first reference to Muskingum Conference territory is 
in the section in the Miami Conference minutes of 1814, in 
which the districts to be represented in the General Conference 
of 1815 are named. Here we meet with the solitary words, 
“fifth, Muskingum.” Newcomer had crossed the territory 
afterward embraced by Muskingum conference in 1810 and 
1812. In 1813,Jhej>reached in Canton and a'number of^other 
places in Stark county. He then went to Tuscarawas county, 
where he preachedfat a number of places. In both of these 
counties, United Brethren families, if not United Brethren 
classes, must have existed for some years. Probably United 
Brethren families were located in Harrison county some years 
earlier still, though not visited by Newcomer until 1816. In 
1817, he again visited and preached in Harrison, Stark, and 
Tuscarawas counties. 

It is claimed that as early as 1810 a class was formed at 
Joseph Naftzgar’s, near Conotton, in Harrison county. As 
classes then were constituted, the claim may have some valid 
ground. The county is within the “seven ranges” that were 
first opened for settlement, and the Brown, Baer, Stambaugh, 
and other United Brethren families were among the early 
settlers. The fact that a church building was not erected in 
the community until 1840 was perhaps due to the number of 
private houses that were open for religious meetings, and a 
preference on the part of the people to assemble in private 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 


329 


houses, bams, and out-of-door places. The German settlement 
in Tuscarawas county at Crooked Run, extending to include 
Canal Dover, included many United Brethren families from 
Lancaster county, Pennsylvania. The Kohr, Butt, and Wilga- 
mott families often are mentioned. Later, Rev. John Hildt 
became located here. In 1829, there was here a “new meeting 
house.” Another early United Brethren preaching place 
bordering on the community already named was on Broad 
Run, in the direction of Strasburg. The Muskingum confer¬ 
ence first met in a church here in 1828. 

The pioneer preaching places in Stark county that contend 
with one another for priority are those where Newcomer 
chapel is located, four miles from Massillon, Alliance, and the 
place where the Weimer church is located, near Beach City. 
The Newcomer church organization claims to date from 1817, 
the claim also being put forth that the church building was 
erected in that year. Early testimonies and unbroken history 
are strongly in favor of these claims. The Alliance class, 
belonging to the town called Williamsport, before Williamsport 
and Freedom were united under the name Alliance, is said to 
date from the time of Newcomer's early visits. In connection 
with his visits in 1813, and following years, he names a number 
of families at whose homes he visited or preached. He gives 
the names of Rowland, Roth, Bachtel, Rouser, and others. 
He had preached at the home of Rouser in Pennsylvania 
eleven years before. The class at Weimer's might be dated 
back to 1815, when a number of Weimer families moved from 
Somerset county, Pennsylvania, to Stark county. The Weimer 
church was erected in 1835. 

As a help for the further study of the extension of the 
work of the Church into the eastern part of Ohio, we may turn 
to the minutes of the first session of the Muskingum conference, 
as follows: 

The first day of June, 1818, the preachers of the United 
Brethren in Christ assembled in a conference at Joseph Naftz- 
gar's, in Harrison county, in the State of Ohio, and the following 
preachers were present: (1) Christian Newcomer, (2) Andrew 
Zeller, Bishops; (3) George Pfrimmer, (4) Abraham Forney, 


330 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


elders; (5) Matthias Bortsfield, (6) Joseph Gundy, (7) Chris¬ 
tian Knage, (8) Jacob Winter, (9) Jacob Lehman, (10) John 
Crum [preachers]; (11) Jacob Antrim, exhorter.* 

At the opening of the conference, the fifteenth chapter of 
John was read; then followed singing and prayer. First, the 
origin of the Brotherhood was spoken about, the cause of the 
conference, and how the name, the United Brethren in Christ, 
originated at the beginning. Brother Newcomer spoke of the 
responsibility of the preacher's office, his duty, the misery of 
men, and that the sinner, if he would be happy, must experience 
the forgiveness of his sins, and that he must know that he has 
peace with God. Then again singing and prayer. Brother 
Newcomer began with the confession of the preachers. Accusa¬ 
tion was brought against him concerning classing in Geeting's 
congregation; and after an investigation it was only a mis¬ 
understanding between him and Michael Kohr. Further, there 
was no accusation against the preachers, and brotherly love 
prevailed; and resolved in love under the blessing of the Lord 
to build the kingdom of Christ. 

The conference adjourned for an hour, with singing and 
prayer. The conference again began with the reading of the 
twelfth chapter of Romans; then singing and prayer. On 
request, Jacob Winter and John Brown were ordained as 
elders with the laying on of hands by the two Bishops, Christian 
Newcomer and Andrew Zeller, and Elder George Pfrimmer, with 
blessing. 

A license was sent to Richard Lewis. Brother John Crum 
received a license as a preacher. The next conference will be 
held at Matthias Bortsfield’s, in Tuscarawas county, in the 
State of Ohio, on the first day of June, 1819. A prayer and 
fast day was ordered before the Lancaster conference, the 
fourteenth day of August, and another the first of January. 
The conference adjourned with singing and prayer, in the 
blessing of the Lord and brotherly love. 

John George Pfrimmer, Secretary. 

God bless the Brotherhood. 

Jacob Winter became a member of the conference in the 
East in 1811. He preached in connection with Muskingum 

♦Only six of those named were at the beginning members of the conference. John Crum 
was admitted in the course of the session. One of the Bishops was a member of the Eastern 
conference, and the other of the Miami. George Pfrimmer was a member of Miami con¬ 
ference. Jacob Antrim was recognized as an exhorter, though he was later regularly received 
as an exhorter by the Miami conference. Jacob Lehman was a visitor from Miami conference. 
Jacob Winter and Abraham Forney lived in Pennsylvania, although both later moved to 
Ohio. The other charter members were residents of Ohio. 



PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 


331 


conference while the western counties of Pennsylvania were 
connected with that conference, and later continued to be an 
able and efficient member in the Pennsylvania and Scioto 
conferences. As far as can be determined, Matthias Bortsfield 
was the first United Brethren preacher to settle in the Ohio 
part of Muskingum conference territory. He was present in 
1804 and 1809 as a member of the conference in the East. In 
1803, he was living in Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania. 
At some time after 1809, he moved to Tuscarawas county, 
Ohio. Camp-meetings were held on his land in 1819 and 1821. 
He served as presiding elder, and as a delegate to the General 
Conference in 1821. 

Three others became members at the session, Richard 
Lewis, John Crum, and John Brown, all of them living in Ohio. 
It should be remarked that other preachers living in western 
Pennsylvania were also properly members of the conference; 
for example, Abraham Troxel, Christian Berger, Henry 
Spayth, and Henry Erret. Some of the preachers residing in 
western Pennsylvania seemed at this time to prefer relation¬ 
ship to the old conference. 

How well we would like to hear Newcomer repeat his story 
to the conference on the “origin of the Brotherhood/' and “how 
the name, the United Brethren in Christ, originated at the 
beginning." That these themes were proper subjects for 
explanation is indicated by the following from his Journal: 
“This was something rather new and strange to some of the 
brethren, and they appeared loath to acquiesce and come 
under the rules of discipline, but they were soon convinced of 
their error." 

What sublime courage, or what pitiable presumption, for 
the conference, with a scant half-dozen preachers to depend on, 
the most of them inexperienced and untried, to resolve, “under 
the blessing of the Lord to build the kingdom of Christ." But 
as they relied on “the blessing of the Lord," and knew that the 
years are his, there was nothing strange or uncertain in their 
undertaking. The minutes say nothing about how the work 
was divided out. 


332 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


From this feeble beginning, we may trace, as connectedly 
as possible, the extension of the work in eastern Ohio, and 
note the beginnings in the northern part of the State. At the 
conference in 1819, which met at Matthias Bortsfield's, in 
Tuscarawas county, Christian Berger was the only one that 
agreed to do itinerant work in the Ohio part of the conference 
territory, and his agreement was to undertake the work "as an 
experiment.” From what we already have noticed of United 
Brethren families and communities, we know something of the 
circuit that Christian Berger must have served. In addition 
to the field in Harrison, Tuscarawas, and Stark counties, he 
must have preached at New Lisbon and other places in Col¬ 
umbiana county. In 1820, Christian Berger continued his 
experiment as the sole itinerant in Ohio. In 1821, Matthias 
Bortsfield was made presiding elder for Ohio for a term of four 
years, but there is no trace of him after 1821. At the same 
time, H. G. Spayth was made presiding elder for part of the 
conference territory in Pennsylvania. In 1822, Muskingum 
conference seems to have had no preacher for its most important 
circuit, that of New Philadelphia, and Miami conference, 
without a word of exp'anation, appointed two of its preachers 
to this circuit, John Eckart being the principal one. After 
1823, conditions began to improve. In 1824, Wooster and 
New Philadelphia district was named as one of the districts 
from which delegates to the General Conference were to be 
sent, and the fact that the General Conference held its session 
in Tuscarawas county the following year would indicate that 
the work here was expected to grow in importance. 

From the vantage point now gained, something of a survey 
may be made. Up to 1828, four sessions of the conference had 
been held in Pennsylvania and seven sessions in Ohio. In 
1828, at the session held at Broad Run, there were, aside from 
the Bishops, only ten preachers present, the name of John 
Hildt being one of the new names on the roll. At this time, 
there were four circuits and four itinerants. Adam Hetzler 
and Moses Herbert were to serve together the Wooster and 
New Lisbon circuits, Henry Purdy was to serve the Wills 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 


333 


Creek circuit, and Jacob Winter was to serve the Westmoreland 
circuit in Pennsylvania. 

In 1829, at the session held at Crooked Run, fourteen 
preachers besides the Bishops were noted as present, and eleven 
as absent. The following report of the stationing committee 
for that year will give us our best view of the field and the 
workers: Westmoreland circuit, Jacob Winter, Daniel Wor- 
man, P. E.; Wooster circuit, Jacob Crum, John Hildt, P. E.; 
New Lisbon circuit, Jonathan Harrison, Isaac Stambaugh, 
P. E.; Sandusky circuit, John Zahn, Jacob Baulus, P. E. 

Jacob Baulus moved from Maryland to near Lower 
Sandusky, now Fremont, Ohio, in 1822, locating in the “deep 
dark forest of the Black Swamp.” He early began to preach 
in the country about him, and formed several classes. After 
seven years given to the opening up of his farm, in which time 
he had attended no annual conference session, he reported to 
the Muskingum conference in 1829, at which time the San¬ 
dusky circuit was constituted, J. Zahn being named preacher 
and Jacob Baulus presiding elder. There was a stretch of one 
hundred miles between this circuit and any other field in 
Muskingum conference. John Zahn, a strong preacher in the 
conference in the East, seems not to have responded to the call 
in Ohio. The General Conference, which met a short time after 
the session of the Muskingum conference, ordered that the 
Sandusky field should be included in the territory of Muskingum 
conference; but soon afterward the connection ceased. The 
next year, Jacob Baulus was not present at the session of the 
Muskingum conference, and yet he was named again as pre¬ 
siding elder of Sandusky circuit, with Israel Harrington and 
Jonathan Harrison preachers. For 1831, the Muskingum 
minutes contain no reference to Jacob Baulus or Sandusky 
circuit, but the Scioto minutes name Jacob Baulus as an absent 
member of Scioto conference. James Ross of the Scioto confer¬ 
ence was the preacher on Sandusky circuit in 1831, and in 1832 
Scioto conference named Sandusky district as one of the dis¬ 
tricts from which delegates should be elected to the General 
Conference. In 1833, Jacob Baulus was the German “clerk” 


334 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


of the Scioto conference, and in 1833 he was one of the repre¬ 
sentatives of Scioto conference in the General Conference. 

The General Conference of 1833 gave back to the Penn¬ 
sylvania conference the territory in western Pennsylvania 
which it had held since its organization in 1818. This separa¬ 
tion was to the advantage both of the Pennsylvania and Ohio 
parts of the conference territory. The two parts of the con¬ 
ference territory could not well be worked together. At the 
session of the conference held in Pennsylvania in 1831, there 
were only seven members present besides the Bishop. While 
progress was not rapid after the separation in 1833, a steady 
improvement early was noticeable. In 1834, seventeen mem¬ 
bers were present, including the two new Bishops, William 
Brown and Samuel Hiestand. Alexander Biddle, whose name 
appeared on the roll in 1831, was an accession of great value to 
the working force of the conference. In this period, the 
Wooster circuit was the banner circuit in the year 1833-34, 
and also in the year following, paying its preacher, Thomas 
Foster, $160, the maximum amount allowed a married preach¬ 
er. Lisbon and Crooked Run circuits came next. The fol¬ 
lowing references to the location and division of circuits will 
give a good idea of the field occupied and progress being made. 
The minutes of 1837 say: 

The Lisbon circuit shall be divided into two circuits, that 
part eastward from Canton shall be called Lisbon circuit and 
that part southward from Canton shall be called Canton circuit. 
The Will’s Creek circuit was divided and the new circuit was 
called Bealsville. The Crooked Run circuit was divided, the 
new circuit to be called Coshocton circuit. The New Lisbon 
circuit was divided, the new circuit to be called Bethlehem 
The Wooster circuit was changed and received the name 
Dover, and the Mohican was changed to the name of Wooster. 

The only circuit in 1841, besides those named, was Warren 
circuit. In 1837, the presiding elders came to be traveling 
presiding elders instead of local presiding elders. Although 
there were some preachers that preached in English, the work 
in the conference territory was prevailingly carried on in 
German down to 1840. In the conference session of that year, 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 


335 


there was an English as well as a German secretary. Through¬ 
out all of the early history of the Muskingum conference, 
there was the utmost care as to the spiritual and moral charac¬ 
ter and diligence in the work of all the preachers. A few 
quotations will indicate: 

Brother John Simons was exhorted to put his attention 
to the study of German and English and to pronounce his 
words more distinctly. 

Ordered that the secretary write a letter of admonition 
to Brother Henry Stambaugh, in a moderate manner. That 
it is believed by many that he possesses not the same power 
and zeal that he formerly had, and is earnestly exhorted to 
put his talents more fully into use in preaching the gospel, 
and calling sinners to repentance. 

Ordered that Thomas Cheney be admonished to pay his 
vows more fully by preaching the gospel and calling sinners to 
repentance, to save souls and save his own soul. 

Ordered that Moses Gallagher be examined on some 
erroneous conceptions of the Deity. 

Thus we have sought to follow the work begun by the 
intrepid little band of preachers that in 1818 resolved, “under 
the blessing of the Lord, to build the kingdom of Christ.” 
The labor of twenty years brought but moderate success; but 
the day was brightening. From this more or less connected 
history of the beginnings of Muskingum conference, we may 
return to take up again the general history of the Church. 

The Third General Conference met at Dewalt Mechlin’s, 
in Fairfield county, Ohio, May 15, 1821. This was the first of 
eleven sessions to be held successively in Ohio. The center 
for the Church was moving westward. Already, Miami 
conference was described as extending to the Wabash river, 
thus including all of southern Indiana. Because of the travel 
involved, and perhaps also because of some dissatisfaction as 
to the mode of representation in the General Conference, three 
delegates elected from Pennsylvania did not present them¬ 
selves. The following is the list of delegates present: Mary¬ 
land, Samuel Huber and William Brown; Carlisle, Michael 
Baer; Virginia, George Geeting and Daniel Pfeifer; Miami, 
Henry Joseph Frey and Henry Evinger; Twin, Henry Kumler, 


336 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Sr., and Abraham Bonsler; Muskingum, Matthias Bortsfield 
and A. Forney; New Lancaster, Lewis Kramer and Nathaniel 
Havens; Lower Lancaster, George Benedum and Joseph 
Hoffman; Indiana, John McNamar and John George Pfrim- 
mer. Bishops Newcomer and Zeller presided, and John 
George Pfrimmer served as secretary. Of the seventeen dele¬ 
gates present, only three had served in previous General 
Conference sessions—Henry Kumler, Sr., in 1815 and 1817; 
George Benedum in 1815 and Lewis Kramer in 1817. Nathaniel 
Havens and John McNamar, of Miami conference, the first 
English-speaking delegates to a General Conference, presented 
themselves at this session. Thus, traditional elements were 
not prominent. Newcomer wrote in his Journal: “Bless the 
Lord for the peace, unanimity, and brotherly love which pre¬ 
vailed throughout.” 

A letter was received from Jacob Baulus and John Snyder, 
prominent preachers of the Church, in which they petitioned 
that each annual conference should be represented by two 
traveling and two local preachers. On motion of Joseph 
Hoffman, the method already in use was reaffirmed. Up to 
1833, each annual conference mapped out its own districts, 
from each of which two elders were to be chosen as delegates 
The districts generally corresponded to presiding elders’ 
districts. 

One of the least obtrusive, but one of the most important 
and far-reaching acts of the conference, was the initiating of 
better methods in securing support for the ministry. On 
motion of John McNamar, circuit and class stewards were to 
be appointed, by whom regular reports should be made. In 
1821, Muskingum conference reported $44.60 raised for 
preachers’ support. This sum was divided out to three preach¬ 
ers who together had served fourteen months. In the same 
year, Miami conference reported $409.32 as the amount paid 
to ten itinerants, $50 being the largest amount paid to an 
itinerant. The highest amount paid by any one circuit was 
$66.61. The amount reported by the old conference in the 
East for the support of its itinerants was $439.67, which was 
divided out to six preachers. John McNamar, the prompter 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 


337 


of the new plan, was a poor man with a large family, who 
sought to give himself entirely to the work of the ministry. 
As the first English preacher in the Church, he had a vision of 
the field and opportunities before the Church such as perhaps 
no other preacher of that early period had. 

At this session, the General Conference took definite 
action on the subject of slavery. At this time, the intelligence 
and conscience of the world, and also of the church, were for the 
most part unawakened as to the great evil of human slavery. 
True, there had been protesting voices. John Wesley had 
branded slavery as the “sum of all villainies.” John Woolman, 
among the Quakers, struck strong blows against slavery. It 
might be said, too, that in the United States, even in the 
States of the South, there was a movement in an earlier period, 
looking toward general progressive emancipation. Rut in the 
last part of the eighteenth century, when inventions in con¬ 
nection with the cotton industiy suddenly made slavery 
profitab'e, or seemed to make it such, the lines became drawn 
tensely. On the one side were the believers in slavery as a 
divine institution, and on the other were the “black aboli¬ 
tionists.” Heretofore, the United Brethren had had small 
occasion to deal with the subject. They had not started out to 
reform the world but to help to save it. But now, when a 
definite moral issue was raised, they were not slow to align 
themselves on the side of righteousness and humanity. Al¬ 
ready it has been seen that in the United Brethren movement 
the ethical sense was keenly alive, and it now needed only the 
occasion to declare itself on the subject of slavery. The fol¬ 
lowing is the resolution adopted by the Conference: 

Resolved and enacted, That no slavery, in whatever form 
it may exist, and in no sense of the word, shall be permitted or 
tolerated in our Church; and should there be found any persons 
holding slaves, who are members among us, or make applica¬ 
tion to become such, then the former cannot remain, and the 
latter cannot become members of the United Brethren in 
Christ, unless they manumit their slaves as soon as they receive 
directions from the annual conference so to do. Neither shall 
any member of our Church have the right to sell any of the 
slaves which he or she may now hold. It shall be in the power 


338 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


of the annual conference to prescribe to such slaveholders 
whether, and how long, they may hire out their slaves; but no 
conference shall be allowed to give such slaveholders permission 
to hold or hire out their slaves for any time longer than until 
the master shall, through the labor of such servants, have 
remuneration for the expenses of raising or buying them. 

The substance of the resolution was carried into the 
Discipline of 1821. Yet it must not be understood that all 
difference or conflict in the Church itself was excluded or fore¬ 
stalled by the action taken by the General Conference. Later, 
there were cases of slave-holding, generally “peculiar,” that 
occasioned much vexation. Many in the North, as we shall 
see, stood out against agitation on the subject of slavery. 
Yet the Church never receded from its position, and when the 
crisis came the United Brethren Church was one of the few 
churches that did not split over the slavery issue. 

Another subject to receive attention was the manufactur¬ 
ing of spirituous liquor. The action of the Conference has been 
a subject of frequent reference. George Benedum moved that 
no preacher shall be allowed to carry on a distillery (Stiellerrey). 
This motion was adopted. Then William Brown moved that 
no member of the Society should be allowed to carry on a 
distillery (Brenerey). This motion does not seem to have 
been put to a vote. Then a resolution was offered, that no 
preacher or Society member should carry on a distillery. It 
is not clear that this resolution was put to vote. Then it was 
ordered that the foregoing distillery matters should lie still 
and have no force, but the members of the General Conference 
were requested to lay the resolution before the annual confer¬ 
ences and that it then should be the duty of the preachers to 
expose the evils of distilleries so that the resolution might be 
considered at the next General Conference. 

We would, in our time, say that the action of the confer¬ 
ence was not very advanced or very decided. But we must not 
forget that up to this time it was the drinker or drunkard that 
was admonished or punished, but now the makers and venders 
of ardent spirits were made subjects for condemnation and 
restraint. Among early declarations against distilling, the 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 


339 


following question and answer may be given from the Methodist 
minutes of 1780: 

Question 23. Do we disapprove of the practice of dis¬ 
tilling grain into liquor. Shall we disown our friends who will 
not renounce the practice? 

Answer. Yes. 

In 1781 the Dunkards in their annual meeting declared: 

Concerning distilleries, we heartily counsel all brethren 
who have distilleries that they should by all means endeavor to 
put them away. 

No further action was taken by a General conference until 
the following was placed in the Discipline by the General 
Conference of 1833: 

Should any exhorter, preacher, or elder, from and after the 
next annual conferences in 1834, be engaged in the distillation 
or vending of ardent spirits, he shall for the first and second 
offense be accountable to the quarterly or yearly conference, 
of which he is a member; said conferences will in meekness 
admonish the offending brother to desist from the distillation 
or vending of ardent spirits, as the case may be; should these 
friendly admonitions fail, and the party continue to act in 
the same way, and it be proven to the satisfaction of the 
yearly conference, if a preacher or elder, and if an exhorter 
proven before a quarterly conference, such preacher, elder, or 
exhorter will for the time not be considered a member of this 
church. 

In 1841 the axe was made to fall, and neither preacher nor 
layman engaged in the making or vending of ardent spirits was 
spared. But the manufacturer and sale of fermented liquors 
yet remained to be barbed. The slowness of the awakening of 
the moral consciousness as to the inherent evils in the making 
and sale of intoxicating drinks is indicated by the following 
minute from the Virginia conference in 1831: 

The conference agreed after due deliberation that Conrad 
Weast (Wiest) quit selling liquor and preach more than he has 
done; if not, his license shall be demanded and he be a member 
of the United Brethren in Christ no longer. 

Yet, it required four years to deprive him of his license. 

In the light of the representations above given, we shall 
not misinterpret the ’fact that, in connection with the house of 
Peter Kemp, in which the conferences of 1800 and 1801 were 


340 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


held, there was a distillery at a spring a few rods from the 
house, and that the barrels of whiskey were stored in the 
basement of the building itself. When the writer visited 
Peter Kemp, son of the Peter Kemp referred to, he asked him 
if his father carried on the distillery until his death, which 
occurred in 1811. On examining the books of the distillery, 
he said that he was sorry to say that his dear father carried on 
the business until the time of his death, but that the books 
also showed that his good brethren brought their grain to the 
distillery. These examples may more than suffice to show the 
long road over which the temperance cause has been made to 
travel, and also to show the unwisdom of those who place 
themselves along with the croakers of old who drew down on 
themselves the rebuke of the preacher: “Say not thou, What 
is the cause that the former days were better than these? for 
thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.” It is enough to 
know that the United Brethren Church alw T ays has been in the 
front line of the temperance advance. 

As showing that the General Conference looked far into 
the future, a resolution was adopted looking to the incorpora¬ 
tion of the Society (Gemeinschaft) of the United Brethren in 
Christ, a purpose, however, that was not carried out until 
1890. An act that did not take the future so much into ac¬ 
count was the resolution that city preachers should make their 
settlement with their annual conferences like the other travel¬ 
ing preachers, no account being taken of the amount of service 
required or the expense of living. 

Turning again to the General Conference of 1821, we 
notice that Newcomer was reelected Bishop, and that Joseph 
Hoffman was elected Bishop to take the place of Andrew 
Zeller, who retired on account of age and infirmity. 

Bishop Zeller was born in 1755, in Berks county, Penn¬ 
sylvania. He was converted about 1790, and his comfortable 
farm-house became a home for preachers and a place for religi¬ 
ous meetings. Newcomer often mentions him in his Journal. 
In 1806, as already stated, he settled on a farm near German¬ 
town, Ohio. While he is not named as a preacher in connection 
with his residence in Pennsylvania, he either there or soon 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 


341 


after his arrival in Ohio entered on the work of preaching. 
His home in Ohio became the center for a large sphere of 
activity on the part of the United Brethren itinerants. He was 
a member of the first conference held in Ohio, in 1810, and 
many conference sessions later were held in his house, in which 
he had provided a room sometimes called a meeting house. 
He was a member of the first two General Conferences, and 
in 1817 was elected Bishop. The General Conference that year 
changed the Discipline so that it said the General Conference 
shall elect two Bishops instead of saying one Bishop as before. 
Bishop Zeller was an earnest, whole-hearted Christian, a 
plain, practical preacher, and of good judgment in the affairs 
of the Church. His activity was largely local. He might be 
called a local preacher, a local presiding elder and a local 
Bishop, all this without a word of depreciation. The Church 
started with local preachers, the first presiding elders were 
local, serving without compensation. It was not until about 
1836 that they generally became travelling presiding elders. 
Bishop Zeller, in his term as Bishop, accompanied Bishop 
Newcomer on a number of his trips. He died May 25, 1839, 
and was buried in a small graveyard on his farm whence his 
body was removed later to the Germantown cemetery. 

Joseph Hoffman was born in Cumberland county, Penn¬ 
sylvania, March 19, 1780. He was converted in 1801, received 
license to preach in 1803, and became an itinerant in 1805. 
He had all of the elements that make a great preacher. He was 
of a commanding figure, had a splendid voice, had a keen 
intellect and strong convictions, and was endowed with a 
large capacity for reaching the hearts and consciences of his 
auditors. He was one of the three preachers solemnly ordained 
by Otterbein with the laying on of hands. From 1814 to 1817, 
he was pastor of Otterbein’s congregation. He and Bishop 
Zeller were the only Bishops ordained as such in the United 
Brethren Church. In 1818, he made his residence in Fairfield 
county, Ohio, whence about 1832 he moved to Dayton, Ohio, 
having bought a farm of ninety-four and one-half acres in 
what now is Dayton View. Here he built a large house, 
having two spacious rooms that might be thrown together for 


342 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


religious meetings. In this house, some time before 1836, a 
United Brethren class of about forty members was formed. 
In 1833, he moved to Cincinnati and spent two and one-half 
months in mission work in the first effort to establish a United 
Brethren congregation there. The Virginia conference voted 
some money in 1833 toward a meeting house then being 
erected in Cincinnati. After about 1838, he made his home in 
Lewisburg, Ohio. For some years, he served as circuit preacher 
and presiding elder. He was a regular Gladstone with an ax. 
In his later years, while cutting wood, a stick flew up and put 
out one of his eyes. His first words were, '‘How can I preach 
now?” He died November 8, 1856, at Lewisburg, Ohio, and 
his body reposes in the cemetery there. Five of his sons 
became ministers. It may be asked why he was retired from 
the office of Bishop when apparently in the prime of his strength. 
It has been said that he regarded himself a Bishop for life, 
inasmuch as he had been regularly ordained a Bishop. Per¬ 
sonally, no one was more worthy or more highly esteemed 
than he, but he was quite individualistic, and probably in 
consequence was less able to coalesce in life and labors with 
others and lead in the team work so necessary in building up 
the Church and through it the kingdom of Christ. 

The fourth General Conference met at the house of 
Jacob Shaup, in Tuscarawas county, Ohio, May 7, 1825. 
Bishops Newcomer, and Hoffman presided. John Hildt was 
probably the secretary. The annual conferences were repre¬ 
sented as follows: Hagerstown (as named in the minutes), 
Abraham Mayer, John Hildt, Jacob Daup, Daniel Pfeifer, 
William Brown; Muskingum, H. G. Spayth, Henry Errett, 
James Johnston, J. Crum, Christian Berger; Miami, Henry 
Kumler, Sr., Henry Joseph Frey, Jacob Antrim, John Fetter- 
hoff, Samuel Hiestand, Nathaniel Havens, Andrew Zeller, 
John G. Pfrimmer, George Hoffman, Dewalt Mechlin, William 
Ambrose, and William Stewart. Six of the members, including 
Bishop Newcomer, had been members of the General Confer¬ 
ence in 1815. Among the members who came later to occupy a 
prominent place in the work of the Church were Samuel 
Hiestand, Jacob Antrim, Nathaniel Havens, and William 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 


343 


Stewart. William Brown had been a delegate at the preceding 
session of the General Conference. Altogether, the personnel 
of the conference was strong and well representative of the 
Church. The increasing number of English preachers will be 
noticed later. The Discipline was revised carefully. It was 
ordered that no preacher should condemn or speak disrespect¬ 
fully of the mode of baptism practiced by another. 

An important action of the conference was the resolution 
“that the Miami Conference shall be divided into two con¬ 
ference districts, and that the so-called Black Swamp be the 
line between them.” The line of division ran north from near 
Hillsboro through the west part of Fayette county. The Black 
Swamp lay at the head waters of several small streams. 

Christian Newcomer and Henry Kumler, Sr., were elected 
Bishops. The following resolution w T as adopted: “Resolved, 
that, as the newly elected Bishop has already been ordained 
by the imposition of hands as an elder in the Church, a second 
ordination is not deemed essential to the duties of a Bishop; 
nor do we find a scripture precedent for a second or third 
ordination.” Thus a Bishop was recognized as the first among 
equals. Hitherto the Bishops had received no salary. Now 
they were to receive the stipulated salary of circuit preachers; 
but stipulation and payment proved to be very different 
things. Fortunately or unfortunately, the two bishops now 
chosen could subsist on means of their own. It also was 
ordered that, where possible, presiding elders that could 
travel their districts should be chosen, and that their salary 
should be the same as that of a preacher traveling a circuit. 

Henry Kumler, Sr., was born in Lancaster county, Penn¬ 
sylvania, January 3, 1775. His father was born in Switzerland. 
The family was connected with the German Reformed church. 
About 1810, he removed to a farm near Greencastle, Penn¬ 
sylvania. Here, after a great spiritual struggle and a joyful 
and confident experience of divine grace, he entered on the 
work of the ministry, becoming a member of the conference in 
the East in 1814. He entered at once extensively on the work 
of preaching, being closely associated with the fathers of the 
Church. He was a delegate to all of the General Conferences 


344 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


up to 1825. In 1819, he moved to Butler county, Ohio, where 
his house became a home for the itinerant preachers and a 
place for religious meetings. He was elected Bishop for five 
successive terms, retiring from the duties and responsibilities 
of the office in 1845. He died January 8, 1854, having just 
entered on his eightieth year. He was a sympathetic and 
practical preacher, and a good administrator in the affairs of 
the Church. He reared a large family, two of them becoming 
ministers. Members of his family became prominent in civic 
and religious affairs. His wife was as exemplary and useful 
in the home and the community as he was in the larger sphere 
in which he labored. 

The fifth General Conference met May 15,1829, at Dewalt 
Mechlin’s, in Fairfield county, Ohio, where the General Con¬ 
ference had met eight years before. Christian Newcomer and 
Henry Kumler, Sr., were present as Bishops. The conferences 
were represented as follows: Hagerstown, William Brown, 
Thomas Miller, Henry Burtner, John Zahn, Jacob Erb, Simon 
Dresbach, John Hendricks, Ezekiel Boring; Miami, Henry 
Joseph Frey, Andrew Zeller, John McNamar, John Denham, 
Jacob Flickinger, John Fetterhoff, George Bonebrake, Aaron 
Farmer; Muskingum, John Crum, John Hildt, John Bash; 
Scioto, Joseph Hoffman, John Coons, George Benedum, 
James Kinney, Elijah Collins, James Ross, John Russel. In 
all there were twenty-eight delegates. John Hildt and Thomas 
Miller were elected secretaries, the latter evidently the English 
secretary. 

The General Conference adopted a strong resolution in 
disapproval of Freemasonry and enacted that those that were 
members or became such thereby excluded themselves from 
the Church. This action was in harmony with resolutions 
adopted by the annual conferences, and in general accord with 
the public sentiment of the times both within and out of the 
churches. Provision was made for the setting off from the 
Miami conference district the territory in Indiana and Ken¬ 
tucky west of the Ohio-Indiana line and of said line extended 
across Kentucky, the new conference to be known as Indiana 
conference. Also, the old conference in the East, sometimes 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 


345 


called the Hagerstown conference, was divided. The General 
Conference minutes say: "That the Hagerstown conference 
district shall consist of the State of Virginia and the counties 
of Washington and Allegheny in Maryland, and that the re¬ 
maining part of the Hagerstown conference district shall in 
the future constitute a new conference district to be called the 
Harrisburg conference district/' 

A representative from the newly formed Methodist 
Protestant Church presented a memorial looking toward a 
union of the new Methodist body with the United Brethren. 
His message was received cordially and a friendly answer 
given. The reply of the General Conference was to the effect 
that the membership of the Church, and not the General 
Conference had the sole prerogative to take such a union as 
that proposed under consideration. The fact seems to be that 
the United Brethren were too well satisfied with the prospect 
before the Church at that time to take new alliances into 
account. The leaders of the Methodist Protestants of that 
time were a remarkably strong and well equipped body of 
ministers. 

Among the new, strong men in the General Conference of 
1829 were John Coons, John Russel, and Jacob Erb, all of 
whom subsequently were elected Bishops. At this session, 
Bishops Newcomer and Kumler were reelected. 

After the General Conference, Bishop Newcomer attended 
the Miami conference, passed through the Sandusky country 
and Tuscarawas county, and on by his old route to his home. 
Though interrupted by sickness and weakness, he continued to 
preach as he was able, but March 12, 1830, less than a year 
after the General Conference, he fell asleep in the Lord whom 
he had trusted and served so long. He had tried all his life to 
do the best that any man can do, in that he had tried to make 
himself unnecessary by raising up others to take his place. 
He put licenses into the hands of scores of young men, often 
without their knowledge of his thought and purpose. His 
body rests in the plain Beaver Creek cemetery near his home. 
There is an early tradition that he requested that no monu¬ 
ment should be erected to display his name. The last man 


346 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


that could identify the mound over his sleeping dust died many 
years ago, thus making it certain that his request, if made, 
shall not be disregarded. No one could desire that a monu¬ 
ment to sincere Christian Newcomer should be placed at 
the head of a fake grave. 

The Sixth General Conference met in the Dresbach 
church, on the line between Pickaway and Fairfield counties, 
Ohio, May 14, 1833. Bishop Kumler, Sr., presided. The 
conferences were represented as follows: Pennsylvania, 
Ezekiel Boring, Jacob Erb, John Snyder, William Brown, 
James Newman, Frederick Gilbert; Muskingum, Henry G. 
Spayth, Adam Hetzler, Sewel Briggs, John Eckart, Christian 
Knagi; Virginia, William Rhinehart; Scioto, John Russel, 
Jacob Baulus, George Benedum, Daniel Davis, William 
Hastings, James Ross, Samuel Hiestand, John Coons; Indiana, 
John Denham, James Griffith, Aaron Farmer, Josiah Davis, 
John McNamar, Francis Whitcom; Miami, Henry Kumler, 
Jr., J. Fetterhoff, Samuel Hoffman, J. Swearingen, Abraham 
Shindledecker, David Keiser, George Bonebrake. In all, there 
were thirty-three delegates. Henry G. Spayth and William 
R. Rhinehart were chosen secretaries. 

The minutes of this session, after the facts given above 
as to the opening of the session, give us absolutely nothing 
beyond the changes made in the Discipline. Thus, their silence 
as to this or that transaction supposed to have received the 
attention of the conference has no force whatever as evidence. 

The General Conference undertook to restrict the power of 
subsequent General Conferences. It was declared that the 
General Conference shall have no power to change the Confes¬ 
sion of Faith or to change the rules of the Discipline as they 
then stood. It was ordered that two delegates should be sent 
to the General Conference from each annual conference, in¬ 
stead of two delegates from each of such districts as the annual 
conferences should determine. The Discipline was made to 
say that one or more Bishops should be elected instead of 
saying two should be elected. Presiding elders were to be 
chosen for one year instead of four. The Bishops still, “with 
the consent of the conference/' were to elect the presiding 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 


347 


elders. However, for years, conferences, for the most part, 
had been electing the presiding elders by ballot. Nomination 
by the Bishops was the exception and not the rule. The an¬ 
nual conferences were to elect an English, as well as a German, 
secretary when it might seem best. Preachers were to stand 
a probation of three years, instead of two, before they might 
become elders. The constituting of two new conferences, the 
Sandusky and the Wabash, were important acts of the confer¬ 
ence, though as before indicated the minutes contain nothing 
on the subject. However, there is some outside indication. A 
pamphlet giving the minutes of six annual conferences held in 
1833 contains the proposal to include in a similar publication 
the following year the minutes of the Sandusky and Wabash 
conferences. Only the action of the General Conference could 
have been a basis for such a proposal. The Indiana conference, 
in its session September 5, 1833, recorded the following action: 
“It was unanimously agreed on that Wabash and Indiana 
conferences should meet together again on the second Tuesday 
in September (September 9, 1834) at Jeremiah Davis’, Warren 
county, Indiana.” 

The providing for the Printing Establishment by the 
General Conference in 1833 was another act for which the 
minutes give us no information, and yet the trustees of the 
Printing Establishment refer, in a notice printed in the first 
number of the Religious Telescope, to the action of the General 
Conference as providing for the establishment of the new 
enterprise. 

The era for religious newspapers is said to have begun 
about 1822. The first religious newspaper to make its appear¬ 
ance was the “Herald of Gospel Liberty” published by the 
Christian church. The first number, appearing in 1808, 
contains the following striking statement: “A religious news¬ 
paper is a thing almost unknown under the sun. I know not 
but this is the first ever published in the world.” The periodical 
is now published in Dayton, Ohio. Consequently, when Aaron 
Farmer began the publication of Zion’s Advocate at Salem, 
Indiana, in 1829, under the authorization of the Miami Annual 
Conference, Zion’s Advocate was one of the pioneers in a new 


348 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


field. After about two years, the paper ceased to appear from 
want of sufficient support. Mr. Farmer, however, from what 
he was as a man and a preacher, and from his adventure into 
what now is a field of prodigious activity and influence, always 
will be remembered. A second venture in the religious news¬ 
paper field was made under the approval of Virginia conference 
by William R. Rhinehart, at Hagerstown, Maryland, in 1834. 
The first number, under the name, “The Union Messenger,” 
was of the nature of a prospectus, and bore date of June 27, 
1834. The name later used was “The Mountain Messenger.” 
Only a few numbers were published. Both the editor and the 
type used were absorbed in the publication of the Religious 
Telescope. 

A bit of history is gleaned from the minutes of the Scioto 
conference for 1834. The General Conference had done little 
more than to authorize the publishing of a religious paper, and 
then turned over the carrying out of the purpose to the Scioto 
conference. For years, a supervision of the publishing interests 
was intrusted to the Scioto conference. The action of the 
Scioto conference extended both to the appointment of trustees 
and the naming of the Religious Telescope as the following 
minutes show: 

According to a resolution of the last General Conference, 
this conference, by vote of its members, appoint George Dres- 
bach, Jonathan Dresbach, and John Russel trustees the ensuing 
conference [year] to manage the concerns of the printing press 
at Circleville, Pickaway county, Ohio; also John Kunse (Coons) 
treasurer, and in the absence of one of the trustees, said John 
Kunse to have a voice in transaction of business. On motion 
resolved that the paper to be printed at Circleville, Ohio, under 
the direction of the United Brethren in Christ, shall be con¬ 
ducted under the character of a religious paper, entitled the 
Religious Telescope of Circleville by the United Brethren in 
Christ. 

In due time the Religious Telescope came from the press 
the first number bearing date December 31, 1834. The paper 
was a folio of four pages, fifteen by twenty-two inches in size, 
published semi-monthly at $1.50 per year in advance, or $2.00 
at the end of the year, postage extra. It was a little bark 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837 


349 


launched on an unchartered sea. At the session of the Scioto 
conference, meeting May 15, 1835, the following resolution 
was adopted: “Resolved, that this conference express their 
willingness that the trustees employ William R. Rhinehart as 
editor and Lawrence Winting (?) as printer in the office of the 
Religious Telescope until the next General Conference, how¬ 
ever, under the direction of the trustees.” It seems that the 
trustees had employed the editor and printer only temporarily, 
or for one year. In 1835, the conference resolved “that the 
trustees and treasurer have fifty cents, exclusive of their 
necessary expenses, for each day spent in the discharge of their 
several duties pertaining to the printing office.” As there was 
no regular publishing agent, many minor as well as larger 
duties devolved upon them. The capital back of the new 
enterprise was about $1,600, nearly all of which was borrowed. 
Donations were sought to build up a publishing fund. However, 
but little was secured for this purpose. While the Religious 
Telescope received the chief attention, even giving its name 
to the entire establishment, other features were contemplated 
from the start. In the very first issue of the paper, the declara¬ 
tion was made, “Book and job printing of every description 
will be neatly and expeditiously executed at this office.” Also, 
a number of books were advertised for sale. The most im¬ 
portant feature announced in the first number was that “all 
profits arising from this work shall go to assist the itinerant, 
superannuated, and indigent preachers and their families.” 
A German periodical was published from the House in 1841, 
and two other periodicals were added to the list in 1853 and 
1854. Thus the designation, “Telescope office,” became more 
and more inappropriate. 

Samuel Hiestand and William Brown were elected Bishops 
by the General Conference of 1833. As already explained, the 
minutes say nothing about the election. 

Samuel Hiestand was a brother of Abraham Hiestand, one 
of the pioneer preachers of the Lancaster region in Ohio. He 
was born March 3, 1781, in Page County, Virginia. His reli¬ 
gious experience was of the more quiet kind, reflecting his 
descent from Moravian ancestors. After his removal to 


350 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Fairfield county, Ohio, about 1804, along with others of his 
father’s family, his religious life fell to a low ebb. But, under 
the preaching of George Benedum, he was thoroughly awak¬ 
ened. In 1820, he was granted license as a preacher by the 
Miami conference, and soon thereafter was uniformly engaged 
in the work of the ministry. He was a member of the General 
Conferences of 1821, 1825, and 1833. He was a good preacher, 
and at times very impressive. He was a judicious counselor, a 
good administrator, and always had the high esteem of his 
associates. He was reelected Bishop in 1837, but his career 
suddenly was cut short by death October 9, 1838. 

William Brown, the other new Bishop elected in 1833, was 
born in Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, July 7, 1796. His 
grandfather, Michael Brown, had come under the influence of 
the early revival movement. His father, Peter Brown, and 
likewise his pious mother, were connected with the United 
Brethren in the David Snyder and Abraham Mayer neighbor¬ 
hood in Cumberland county, Pennsylvania. William Brown 
was temperamentally thoughtful and self-restrained, as mani¬ 
fested in his boyhood and throughout his whole life. He 
early found Christ and became loyally devoted to him. His 
case is a proof that it is not necessary first to be a rake before 
one can be a fervent preacher of the gospel. He joined the 
Eastern conference in 1816, and at once became active in 
preaching, the effect of his feeling exhortations often being 
spoken of. He was associated closely with the early fathers, 
especially with Christian Newcomer. He was a member of the 
General Conferences of 1821, 1825, and 1833. From 1825 to 
1828, he was pastor of the Otterbein congregation in Baltimore. 
After the close of his four-year term as Bishop he removed to 
Benton county, Indiana, where members of his father’s family 
had located, and there made his home until his death, which 
occurred May 11, 1868. In Indiana he served as itinerant 
preacher and presiding elder for many years. His last efforts 
were in the line of promoting and encouraging the scattered 
German work about him. His body rests in the Pond Grove 
cemetery, near his Indiana home. 


CHAPTER VIII 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837, CONTINUED; 
THE ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


The Old Conference (1817 to 1830)—Benevolent Fund—Forming Classes— 
Division of the Old Conference—Pennsylvania Conference—Virginia 
Conference—Miami Conference—John McNamar—Other English 
Preachers—Scioto Conference Formed—Indiana Conference— 
Wabash Settlement—Wabash Conference—Prominent 
Preachers—Scioto Conference—Sandusky Confer¬ 
ence. 


r HE general organization and administrative features 
of the Church, for the period from 1817 to 1837, as 
represented by the acts of the General Conferences, 
already have been set forth. We may notice now the 
vital and constructive work of the Church in the annual con¬ 
ferences, for the period named. As a hasty survey of the 
Muskingum conference has been given, our attention now will 
be directed to the other conferences. If the spirit, varied 
qualifications, and labors of the devoted workers in the dif¬ 
ferent fields could be made to stand before us in their true 
character, a great want would be met. But only an example 
here and there, some scattered incidents, and a broken chain of 
events are left to us. In many cases, all that can be said, after 
noticing a few available facts, is, From these judge all. 

In turning from the newer to the older parts of the Church, 
one is impressed with certain marked differences. In the one 
case, there is the thrill of a new undertaking; in the other, 
there is the responsibility of taking up the labors of those that 
have gone before. In the one case, the labor is of the exten¬ 
sive order; in the other, of the intensive. In the first case, 
there is the brave assault; in the second case, there is the 
settled siege. Likewise, on the one side, there is conquest; 
on the other, conservation. It required a full half century for 
the Church to learn how to build up and maintain strong 
congregations. 


351 


352 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The Old Conference (1817-1830) 

Beginning with the General Conference of 1817, there were 
three annual conferences to be taken into account, the Mus¬ 
kingum, the Miami, and the Old conference in the East. The 
first session of the last named conference, following the Gen¬ 
eral Conference of 1817, was convened May 5, 1818, at Chris¬ 
tian Hershey’s, in Lancaster county, Pennsylvania. The 
place fo meeting was in the immediate neighborhood of Isaac 
Long, in whose barn, fifty years before, were spoken the mem¬ 
orable words, “We are brethren.” The following is the list 
of preachers present: Christian Newcomer and Andrew 
Zeller, the Bishops; Christopher Grosh, Joseph Hoffman, Abra¬ 
ham Mayer, Henry Kumler, Sr., Valentine Baulus, William 
Brown, Jacob Wenger, Samuel Huber, Michael Baer, H. G. 
Spayth, Jacob Lehman, Christian Hershey, Abraham Hershey, 
Daniel Gingerich, Joseph Jordan, John Geisinger, John Sny¬ 
der, G. Brown, C. Roth, D. Fleck, G. Kolb, Christian Smith, 
J. Zentmeyer, D. Pfeifer, Samuel Huber. Christian Hershey, 
the host of the conference, was a man of considerable means 
and was noted for his liberality. Christopher Grosh had a 
large part in the formation of the Church. Along with J. 
Zentmeyer, who was present only at this session of the con¬ 
ference, and some others that never were in attendance, he 
represented distinct contingents coming to swell the number 
of United Brethren. Henry Kumler, Sr., was present for the 
last time before moving to Ohio. H. G. Spayth seemed at 
this time to prefer membership in the Old conference rather 
than in the Muskingum. Christian Smith was one of the most 
active and useful preachers of the early Church. He was a 
member of the prominent Smith family in Augusta county, 
Virginia, which gave to the Church a number of preachers. 
Gideon Smith was his son. Samuel Huber should receive 
special attention because of the large place that he filled, and 
because through his autobiography he gives much of the 
history of the early Church as well as an account of his own 
life. He was born of Mennonite parents January 31, 1782, 
near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. He was received into the 
conference in 1816. After serving long as circuit preacher, 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1887—CONTINUED 353 


presiding elder, and local preacher, he died, July 12, 1868. 
Of him, Lawrence says: “A blunt, earnest, hospitable, and 
independent Christian, he did much during the first half of the 
century to extend the kingdom of Christ in Pennsylvania.” 
The following from his autobiography is of more than local 
interest: 

A few years before there were many members of the 
Church of the United Brethren in Christ residing in Chambers- 
burg, Franklin county, Pennsylvania, John Crider, Jacob 
Wenger, and myself frequently preached in that place. At 
first we preached in brother Braiser’s house, to more hearers 
than the house could hold, many listening outside, for want of 
room within. Some time after this, in the year 1818 or 1819, 
father John Oakes, a United Brethren, had settled with his family 
in Chambersburg, and wanted preaching in his house. I then 
preached alternately there and at Braiser’s. In a short time, 
these houses could not contain the people who would come out 
to hear the preaching. At one of these meetings held in father 
Oakes’ house, the Spirit of God came upon the people like the 
“rushing of a mighty wind.” Many of them felt the power of 
God in a manner they had not experienced before. There 
was one general move among them at that time, some shouting, 
leaping, and praising God for his mercy in filling their hearts 
with his love, joy, and peace. I felt heaven upon earth within 
me. Upon the whole, we had a glorious meeting. Before 
dismissing the people, I stated that, if any persons present 
wished to unite together as one body, to serve the Lord, an 
opportunity would be afforded them to do so. Twenty-six 
persons came forward and attached themselves to the Church 
of the United Brethren in Christ at that time. This was the 
origin of the United Brethren in Chambersburg. 

Samuel Huber also says that his father’s home at Rocky 
Spring, near Chambersburg, was at the first the only place 
between Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Hagerstown, Maryland, 
where the early United Brethren evangelists preached. This 
would apply to the period beginning with 1796. With this be¬ 
ginning, their labors soon extended to the surrounding territory. 

In 1818, J. Russel, and Conrad Wiest were received into 
the conference as exhorters, and D. Pfeifer was received as a 
preacher. Of the great place that J. Russel came to fill as 
preacher and Bishop notice will be taken later. D. Pfeifer, 


354 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


twice was a delegate to the General Conference. Conrad 
Wiest ran well for a time, but, failing to keep abreast with the 
temperance sentiment of the Church, his course ended under a 
cloud. Those that agreed to serve as traveling preachers for 
a half or a full year were, John Snyder, William Brown, David 
Fleck, Jacob Wenger, Michael Baer, Conrad Roth, Valentine 
Baulus, and Henry Kumler, Sr., a strong force for the times. 

The conference for 1819 was held at Valentine Doup's, in 
Frederick county, Maryland. Here John Fetterhoff, along with 
several others, was licensed to exhort, and he and “Johnnie” 
Russel were picked up by Bishop Newcomer and planted down 
in Ohio. The conference appropriated $66.24 for the preachers 
in Ohio, to which was added $50, given by Elizabeth Snyder, 
for the same purpose. Such sums often were carried by Bishop 
Newcomer for the work in Ohio. In 1822, Joseph Witmer put 
$80 in Bishop Newcomer’s hands for this newer field. The 
first money for this purpose, $30, given in 1813 by Matthias 
Kessler, of Frederick, Maryland, was brought by Bishop 
Newcomer for the work in Miami conference. The life of 
Rev. John Fetterhoff, written by himself largely from his 
diary, describes many of the workers, and outstanding 
events of the Church, as well as the course of his own life. 
As a pioneer preacher and presiding elder, his labors were 
bestowed principally in the Miami and Wabash conferences. 
He poured out his large energies without stint. He was rugged 
and independent. He had his faults and made his mistakes, 
which he himself fully confessed. He was bom September 9, 
1798, in the vicinity of Littlestown, Pennsylvania, and died at 
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, October 14, 1882. In his later 
years, he was connected with the St. Joseph and Ohio German 
conferences. In the growing differences in the attitude of the 
Church toward members of secret societies, he strongly es¬ 
poused the radical side. 

As indicating the increasing use of the English Language 
in preaching, Jacob Dunahoo of Virginia, an Irishman, was 
licensed to preach in 1820. In 1821, Henry Burtner and Chris¬ 
tian Troup, who later became a pioneer preacher in Iowa, 
with two others, were licensed to preach. 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 355 


In 1822, the conference convened at Joseph Knagi's, in 
Cumberland county, Pennsylvania. A marked change was 
taking place in the Church in the East about this time. There 
had been a period of actual decline. Lawrence says: “Not 
only was no progress made in numbers from 1810 to 1820, but 
undoubtedly there was a retrogression.” Slowness in making 
use of the English language, opposition to classing, and a one¬ 
sided dependence on a local ministry were the causes. But 
now a new day was dawning. One who knew well the pre¬ 
vailing conditions wrote: “About the year 1820, the United 
Brethren Church began to display an unprecedented vigor and 
life. The denomination seemed to assume a vastly different 
character, prepared to assert and maintain its right to existence 
and a respectable place among the others.” 

Benevolent Fund 

A changed feature was a clearer conception of the place 
of money in the building up of the kingdom of Christ. Many 
of the preachers had boasted that they preached a free gospel, 
and the people responded with a loud amen. The fact that the 
preachers could not give themselves continuously to the work 
of preaching, and were not secure against poverty and distress 
for themselves and their families in their declining years, was 
being realized slowly. In consequence of this awakening, a 
letter from the church in Baltimore was presented by John 
Snyder at the session of the conference in 1818, “relating to 
the raising of a fund to supplement the small salaries of the 
poor preachers who preach in the frontier or western countries 
under the direction of the conference.” In its action, the 
conference referred to a beginning in the same direction made 
by the conference in Ohio in 1816. In 1821, a committee was 
appointed “to devise a plan to secure funds to support the 
itinerant ministers.” John Hildt and Jacob Baulus were 
made a committee to draw up a constitution for a “benevolent 
society,” to be presented to the next annual conference. The 
constitution, as reported to the conference in 1822, was adopted, 
and a board of trustees of seven members, three of whom were 
layman, was appointed. The annual payment of $1 secured a 


356 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


membership, and the payment of $10 secured a life member¬ 
ship. Only the income from the funds collected was available 
for use until the capital amounted to $20,000. The trustees 
were to serve until the meeting of the General Conference. 
An article in the act of incorporation obtained from the Mary¬ 
land legislature provided that the annual income of the Society 
never should exceed $3,000. An Auxiliary society of similar 
character and purpose was founded by members of the Scioto 
conference in 1826. When this society was incorporated by 
the legislature of Ohio, one of the articles provided that the 
yearly income never should exceed the amount of $5,000. 
The income from the Ohio society was turned over to the eastern 
society, and the combined income was given to the Bishops, 
to be divided out to the several annual conferences. It was 
ten years before the amount distributed to the annual con¬ 
ferences exceeded $100. One thousand dollars bequeathed 
to the Church by David Snyder, who died in 1819, went into 
this benevolent fund. His wife, Elizabeth Snyder, who died 
in 1826, bequeathed $1,000 for the benefit of preachers and 
others in need. The benevolent fund grew slowly. While 
never becoming large, it was a beginning in a useful direction, 
and for the time served to hearten the traveling preachers. 
Jacob Erb reported that, when on a journey in connection with 
his missionary work in Canada, he met the devil in the road, 
who told him that he was foolish to travel and work for nothing 
while his family at home was without proper support. He said 
that he told the devil, “We have a fund of $10,000 pledged to 
the support of the poor and superannuated preachers,” where¬ 
upon the devil immediately disappeared. It in time became 
evident that more ample provisions for the purposes in view 
would have to be made, and the General Conference of 1853 
provided for the division of the accumulated funds among the 
annual conferences, and placed on the annual conferences the 
responsibility of meeting the needs within their respective 
districts. At this time, the salaries of traveling preachers 
were $80 for a single man, and $160 for a married man. These 
amounts, however, rarely were reached. As time passed, the 
amounts were more nearly met. 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 357 


In 1823, two of the ablest and most faithful preachers of 
the early period died, Adam Lehman and Christian Crum. 
The joining of the conference in 1823 of Jacob Erb was both a 
token and an important factor looking toward a new advance. 
For sixty years, he did not miss a session of the conference. 
When, in 1837, no community volunteered to entertain the 
conference at its next session, Mr. Erb invited the conference 
to his home in Wormleysburg, and bore nearly all of the ex¬ 
pense of entertainment, including the expense of renting a hall. 

Forming Classes 

It generally is said that the first regular class east of the 
Susquehanna was organized by Jacob Erb at Sherk’s meeting 
house, in Lebanon county, in 1827; but this statement requires 
some modification. Newcomer formed a class of eight members 
at Christian Herr’s in Lancaster county, September 17, 1816. 
C. I. B. Brane placed the formation of the Salem class, at 
Lebanon, at about 1820. Those that formed the class had 
worshipped previously in “Light's meeting house," erected 
about 1818. A church was built in Annville in 1823, though 
the class there may not have been formed until later. In 
other parts, classes were formed much earlier, as at Doup’s, in 
Maryland, a class of ten, in April, 1812; at Peter Brown’s, in 
Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, a class of twenty-two, in 
May, 1813; at Weimer’s, in Somerset county, a class of fifteen, 
in July, 1813. About 1817, Newcomer, in order to hold the 
results of his preaching at Greencastle, Pennsylvania, sewed 
leaves of paper together so as to form a book, and recorded the 
names of five charter members. Of course, before the time of 
these classes that had a roll of members, there were informal 
classes many places simply having worship and spiritual 
benefits as a purpose. But all of this does not take away the 
importance of the class-organization east of the Susquehanna 
by Mr. Erb in 1827. Those calling themselves United Brethren 
were conservative almost beyond belief. The Neidig congrega¬ 
tion, in Dauphin county, having its own church building 
already in 1793, was not a class until 1840, when, under the 
pastoral labors of J. S. Kessler, a class of sixty was formed. 


358 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


A restraining factor in the forming of classes was the influence 
of Martin Crider and Felix Light, venerated preachers in the 
beginning and continued history of the revival movement in 
Lebanon and surrounding counties, who halted when the 
church stage was reached. Felix Light preached widely, 
and made many visits among the people, but had no enthusiasm 
for organization. He died January 23, 1841, in the seventy- 
third year of his age. Jacob Erb, with the prudence which was 
characteristic of him, before venturing on classing in the Sherk 
community, first sought the approval of Felix Light, who was 
looked up to as having almost the authority of a Bishop in his 
part of the country. With this approval reluctantly given, the 
class was formed and a new step was taken in that part of the 
country in the building up of the United Brethren Church. 

In touching a point here and there in the sessions of the 
conference in this period, we may notice that in 1825 the 
conference resolved to omit the title “reverend” in “addresses 
to brethren.” In dress, the preachers were plain, but this does 
not mean that they were careless as to dress or appearance. 
In 1825, a trial was made of holding the session of the conference 
in the fall, a second session being held in November of that 
year; but the next year spring sessions were resumed. At the 
spring session of 1825, William R. Rhinehart was licensed to 
preach. His name will appear again and again. From the 
following list of appointments, made in 1827, it will be seen 
that the number of charges and itinerants was increasing: 
Juniata, David Fleck; Lancaster, Gideon Smith; York, John 
Krack; Hagerstown, John Zahn and John Eckstein; Virginia, 
John Hendricks and Thomas Miller; Huntingdon, Christian 
Troup; New York mission, Jacob Erb; Baltimore, William 
Brown. The following resolution, the forerunner of a long 
and costly conflict, was adopted: 

Resolved, that we, the members of this annual conference, 
do not approve that any of our preachers or members belong to 
the order of Freemasonry, and that in future every preacher 
and every member who is connected with this order or shall 
join it shall lose his membership in our church. 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 359 


The Miami conference had dealt with the subject of 
Freemasonry the previous year. At this time, there was little 
difference of opinion in the Christian church, and even on the 
outside, on the subject of Masonry, other secret organizations 
being little known. 

The conference of 1828 met in “the Union church belonging 
to the Brethren and Reformed congregations in Middletown 
valley,” in Frederick county, Maryland. The church was 
the old church near the home of Jacob Thomas, said to have 
been erected about 1775 as a union or community church. It 
stood about a mile from the present Mount Olivet church, and 
was early known as the Jerusalem church. The United Breth¬ 
ren were using the church as early as 1811, and likely much 
earlier. The manner by which they came to have a recognized 
interest in the property is not known. It may be another ex¬ 
ample of a people that contributed to a property in the com¬ 
munity stage, or before church character was assumed, coming 
to hold the property as theirs when they advanced to the church 
stage. A number of examples of this kind existed requiring 
special deeds or other devices, including enabling acts of State 
legislatures, giving them the right to hold or assign in law what 
was in fact already their own. 

Division of the Old Conference. 

We now approach the time when the old conference, some¬ 
times called the Eastern conference, and again called the 
Hagerstown conference, was to be divided. The General 
Conference of 1829 ordered “that the Hagerstown conference 
district shall consist of the State of Virginia and the counties 
of Washington and Allegheny in Maryland, and the remaining 
part of the Hagerstown conference district shall in the future 
constitute a new conference district, to be called the Harris¬ 
burg conference district.” The occupied territory in Maryland 
to fall to the Harrisburg conference was Frederick county and 
the city of Baltimore, with the territory immediately adjacent. 
It seems, however, that, from the first, Frederick county was 
served by the Hagerstown conference. Beginning in 1832, this 
conference had regularly a Frederick circuit. The General 


360 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Conference of 1837 expressly gave Frederick county to this 
conference. 

The old conference, in 1830, in its last session before the 
division, added some provisions of its own. It adopted the fol¬ 
lowing: “Resolved, that in the future the Hagerstown con¬ 
ference shall have the old protocol [book of minutes], and that 
the Harrisburg conference shall procure a new book.” The 
resolution is followed by the statement: “Bishop Kumler 
gave to William Brown two dollars with which he shall pur¬ 
chase a new protocol for the Harrisburg conference and shall 
transcribe from the old into the new all important proceedings.” 

The claim of the Hagerstown conference to be the original 
conference might be based on its being given the old name, its 
being awarded the old protocol, and the Harrisburg district 
being called a new district. Something might be made of the 
fact that the conference district, included Hagerstown, in and 
about which so much of the history of the Church centered. 
The claim of the Harrisburg conference to be the original 
conference might be made to rest on the fact that within its 
territory were included Baltimore and Frederick county, 
Maryland, where the beginnings of church character were 
assumed. A person entirely disinterested might say that the 
antiquity was split lengthwise. 

As the session of 1830, held at Shopp’s meeting house, in 
Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, was the last for the undi¬ 
vided conference, the greatest number of preachers ever as¬ 
sembled gathered for one more season of fellowship and counsel 
together. Fifty preachers were present. The names of seven¬ 
teen absent members were called. Other preachers had been 
licensed by presiding elders or Bishops, or at great meetings, 
whose names never appeared on an annual-conference roll. 
The territory represented extended from the upper end of the 
Shenandoah valley in Virginia to the western counties of 
Pennsylvania. Moreover, the character and conditions of the 
people were not altogether the same. All these things being 
taken into account, especially the difficulties and slowness of 
travel, the division of the conference territory seemed advisable. 
The cutting off of territory on the south made more easy and 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 361 


appropriate the act of the General Conference of 1833, by 
which the boundary of Pennsylvania conference was extended 
to include all of western Pennsylvania. In 1837, Frederick 
county, Maryland, was formally relinquished to the Virginia 
conference. 

It must be noted that, at this last session of the undivided 
conference, in 1830, the formal record was made of the death, 
in the preceding year, of Christopher Grosh and Bishop 
Christian Newcomer, the former dying on April 16, 1829, and 
the latter on March 12, 1830. They had wrought through the 
years, hand and heart together, and it was fitting that the 
shadow of their passing should mingle with the passing form 
of the old conference. 

Pennsylvania Conference 

The name of the northern section of the old conference, at 
first called the Harrisburg conference, was entered in the pro¬ 
ceedings of the General Conference of 1833 as the Pennsylvania 
conference, and that of the southern section as the Virginia 
conference. The former held its first separate session in 
Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, April 19, 1831. Thirty- 
two preachers were present, and five applicants were received. 
The second session was held at H. Herr's near Harrisburg, 
April 17, 1832. Thirty-four preachers were present, and six 
applicants were received. At both of these sessions, Bishop 
Henry Kumler, Sr., presided, and E. Boring and William 
Brown were elected presiding elders. 

The Pennsylvania conference convened April 9, 1833, 
in Millerstown (Annville), Lebanon county, Pennsylvania. 
The following are the names of those present: Henry Kumler, 
Sr., Bishop; William Brown, chairman; John Rider, secretary; 
John Neidig, Ezekiel Boring, Jacob Erb, Jacob Snyder, James 
Niman, John Light, Felix Light, John Hendricks, George 
Hershey, Joseph Shank, John Potts, John Snyder, Abraham 
Hershey, Christian Hershey, Henry Young, George Gilbert, 
Frederick Gilbert, Joseph Yorde, Jacob Roop, Christian 
Shoop, John Sitman, Christian Smith, Daniel Pfeifer, John 
Hoffman, Jacob Felmore, George Geiler. The appointments 


362 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


made in 1833 to the various fields will give a fair idea of the 
scope of the work at this time. The following is the list: 

Huntingdon district, Ezekiel Boring, P. E.; Huntingdon 
circuit, George St. Clair Hussey, Jacob Ritter; Clearfield cir¬ 
cuit, John Potts; Juniata circuit, George Gilbert; Chambers- 
burg circuit, James Niman, John Hendricks; Carlisle district, 
Jacob Erb, P. E.' Carlisle circuit, Jacob Snider, Francis C. 
Wilson; Dauphin circuit, Jacob Rupp, John Smith; York 
County circuit, Christian Shopp; Baltimore County circuit, 
Frederick Gilbert; Baltimore, John Krack; Canada district, 
Gideon Smith, P. E.; Canada circuit, Jacob G. Erb. 

Of the sixty members of the conference in 1833 only 
twenty-nine were present. John Sitman became a member in 
1832. Jacob Ritter and Casper Light were among those 
received in 1833. Jacob Erb became Bishop in 1837. Jacob 
G. Erb, his cousin, lived in New York, six or seven miles from 
Buffalo, his circuit being in Canada, some distance beyond 
Niagara Falls. In this region, a number of German families 
from Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, had settled. Near 
Buffalo, in New York, also lived Gideon Smith. Both he and 
Jacob G. Erb later moved to Canada. Christian (John Chris- 
tion) Smith, the father of Gideon Smith, was born in Augusta 
county, Virginia. He was an associate of Otterbein, Boehm, 
and Newcomer, and was noted for his power in preaching and 
energy in exhortation. He accompanied Jacob Erb on one of 
his visits to Canada. He was perhaps the only preacher in the 
early church, with the exception of Otterbein, that had a good 
use of the Latin language. He began to preach in the Lutheran 
church. He died in Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, Septem¬ 
ber 8,1860, in his eightieth year. Felix Light rarely attended a 
conference except at or near his home in Lebanon. He was the 
father of John, Casper, and Joseph Light, honored ministers in 
the Church. Christian Hershey was a zealous preacher, the 
most of the time in a local relation. His brother, the venerable 
and loved Abraham Hershey, of Lancaster county, was a 
member of the annual conference in 1801, and died in 1839. 
Abraham Hershey, of Cumberland county, became a member 
of conference in 1825, and died at Muscatine, Iowa, in 1852. 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 363 


Christian Hershey died at Lisbon, Iowa, in 1853. The Her- 
sheys have been almost hopelessly confused. Pennsylvania 
conference met at Greencastle, April 8, 1834. Among those 
admitted to the conference in this year were Martin Lohr, 
George Miller, Daniel Funkhouser, Henry Kephart, and John 
Wallace. J. Kessler was received in 1835, John Fohl the 
following year. Large and prolonged service was rendered by 
this group of men. The conference was growing slowly in 
strength and numbers, and soon we shall hear of the formation 
of a new conference. 

Throughout the entire period, much labor was performed 
by preachers that had no regular assignments. The period was 
noted for the camp-meetings held, the general attendance at 
quarterly meetings, and incessant evangelistic activity. 

The first camp-meeting held in the Church was begun 
August 17, 1815, at Rocky Spring, Franklin county, Pennsyl¬ 
vania. The next year, two or three camp-meetings were held 
in Pennsylvania, and they soon became general throughout the 
Church. The travel and sacrifices in attending these meetings 
were almost incredible. The widow Hoobler, from her home 
on the Wabash, in Indiana, described her attendance at such 
meetings in Pennsylvania. She said she had walked thirty 
miles to watch-night meetings, sixty miles to two-days' meet¬ 
ings, and ninety miles to camp-meetings over the hills of Penn¬ 
sylvania. The people would take a wagon in which were bed¬ 
ding, children, and provisions. The older children walked. The 
family stayed with some family overnight. Next day, the two 
families would proceed together. Others would be gathered up 
on the way. From all directions the people would come to¬ 
gether. The enthusiasm created and the harvests gathered at 
these great meetings marked a new day in religious work. 

It perhaps belongs more to special histories of annual 
conferences to give accounts of local congregations and church 
buildings, yet the whole church is interested in the beginnings 
of whatever kind, reaching back now a full hundred years in 
what is mother territory for the entire Church. 

The Oberlin church house, near Harrisburg, has more 
than a passing interest. As far as can now be ascertained, the 


364 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Oberlin or Neidig church was the second church to be built by 
the United Brethren, the Geeting church at Antietam, built 
before 1774, being the first. But of the Antietam church we 
know little. No deed ever was given for this property. Of the 
Oberlin church property we know much more, and for its 
relation to the United Brethren church we have a knowledge 
unusually complete. While the church, a substantial stone 
building, was erected about 1793, the ground, about one-half 
acre, now the site for a third church building, was not deeded 
until 1803. It was then deeded to “Rev. John Neydick, Felix 
Landis, and John Light, trustees of the German Society or 
congregation” residing in the township of Swatara and county 
of Dauphin. To put the title of the United Brethren beyond 
dispute, the grantor of the original deed made, to the same 
grantees, in 1821, a quit-claim deed for the land before deeded. 
Instead of the vague and untechnical designation in the first 
deed, the second deed used the language, “trustees of the 
German Society of the United Brethren.” Another reason for 
giving a new deed was that since making the first deed the 
grantor had perfected his title to the land of which the church 
lot was a part. The place of John Neidig as a preacher among 
the United Brethren has been stated. As a matter of sur¬ 
prise, the subscription for the building of the church, and the 
statement of the labor and materials going toward its con¬ 
struction, have been handed down in the original German 
form. The subscription is headed, “We, the United (Die 
Vereinigten, plural of Vereinigte) and Undersigned.” Here we 
have the definite proof that the name Die Vereinigte (The 
United) was the title in use before 1800. We are jarred not a 
little in finding that it required over five gallons of whisky 
to meet the requirements of the workmen, a part of which was 
donated and a part bought, another evidence that even good 
and devout people may be slow in rising above the prevalent 
views and customs of the age in which they live. 

The Light church, at Lebanon, though called a Union or 
Mennonite church, erected about 1818, may properly be called 
a United Brethren church. Much the same might be said of 
Sherk's meeting house, in Lebanon county, built about 1825. 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 365 


If Casper Sherk was converted and connected with the United 
Brethren Church about forty years before his death, which 
occurred in 1861, the church was quite surely a United Brethren 
church many years before an act of the Pennsylvania legisla¬ 
ture permitted it to become such in law in 1844. The Ann- 
ville church was built in 1823, and Sherk's church, near Grant- 
ville, in 1825. West of the Susquehanna, the church houses 
seem to have been built in this order: Roth's, near Oakville, 
1816; Chambersburg, 1822; Littlestown, 1823; Shopp’s church, 
near Shiremanstown, 1827; Greencastle church, 1828. The 
Rohler’s church in York county erected on ground deeded in 
1800 for a new school-house and union meeting house, might 
almost be spoken of as belonging to the United Brethren, as 
they were early occupants of the property, becoming later the 
exclusive occupants. 

In Maryland, we may note the Antietam church, erected 
before 1774; the Middletown meeting house, existing in 1801; 
the Hagerstown church built in 1805; and the union church, 
known as Jerusalem chapel, erected near Myersville before 
1800, and becoming the natural inheritance of the United 
Brethren Church. The naming of the few churches that were 
built prior to 1830 should not cause us to overlook the many 
private houses that were generously offered and used for religi¬ 
ous work and worship. Where once were a few rude meeting 
houses, numerous splendid church edifices have sprung up 
more recently as if by magic. 

Virginia Conference 

We now turn our attention to Virginia conference, restrict¬ 
ed to its own definite field, and entering on an era of more 
intensive work. We have had frequent occasion to notice the 
parts of Maryland included in the territory of Virginia confer¬ 
ence, but Virginia itself has received scant attention. But one 
annual session of the Old conference, that of 1808, was held 
v/ithin its borders. It is a long step that takes us back to the 
pioneer evangelists in Virginia—Otterbein, Boehm, and Geet- 
ing; Henry and Christian Crum; the two Duckwalds, and the 
two Niswangers; and Peter Senseny and William Ambrose. 


366 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


But, while their voices were no longer heard, the fruit of their 
labor remained. The Virginia field included particularly the 
Shenandoah valley. At an early time, Loudon county, across 
the Potomac from Frederick county, Maryland, was quite 
well occupied and was served in connection with Carroll 
circuit. Then the valley of the south branch of the Potomac, a 
rough country with a very primitive population, was a sort of 
brush or rock college for the young preachers, or a stern chal¬ 
lenge for the older preachers. Within the “valley of Virginia” 
the preachers demanded and received sympathy from none. 
The large German population in Virginia was made up chiefly 
of settlers or the children of settlers from Pennsylvania. But 
more rapidly than in Pennsylvania the English language was 
supplanting the German language. 

The first session of the Virginia conference as a separate 
conference was held at HinckePs schoolhouse on Mill creek, 
Shenandoah county, Virginia, beginning April 27, 1831. 
Bishop Henry Kumler, Sr., presided, and William R. Rhine- 
hart was chosen secretary. The following is the list of mem¬ 
bers present at the beginning of the session: W. R. Rhinehart, 
Henry Burtner, John Krack, George Patterson, George Geet- 
ing, John Zahn, W. Kinnear, Peter Whitesel, Jacob Houk, 
George Huffman, Noah Woodyard, John Haney, Henry Hig¬ 
gins, Peter Harmon, and William Knott. Jacob Glossbrenner, 
Jacob Haas, Frederick Hisey, and William Miller were granted 
license to preach. Thus, nineteen charter members were pres¬ 
ent. With the Bishop and Jacob Erb, of Pennsylvania confer¬ 
ence, twenty-one preachers were present. The absent members 
recognized were Jacob Dehof, John Hafford, John Clopper, 
Michael Thomas, Thomas Miller, John Eckstein, Harmon 
Houk, Lawrence Sibert, John Hendricks, and Conrad Wiest. 

An account of J. J. Glossbrenner, as Bishop, will be given 
later in connection with his entering on his long career in that 
exalted position. Here w® notice the child, the man, and the 
itinerant preacher. Jacob John Glossbrenner was born July 24, 
1812, at Hagerstown, Maryland. His father, Peter Gloss¬ 
brenner, was a tradesman, industrious and frugal. His mother, 
wiiose maiden name was Christina Shane, was intelligent and 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 367 


possessed a true mother heart. The children in the order of 
their ages were William, Jacob Adam, Jacob John, and Cathar¬ 
ine Agatha. Later, in the case of Jacob John the name John 
sometimes was dropped, and in other cases it was placed before 
the name Jacob, but no one at any time failed to understand 
who was meant by J. J. Glossbrenner. His father's death, by 
a distressing accident, when Jacob was seven years old, made 
it necessary that the children should be put out to work at an 
early age. Thus they were deprived of school advantages 
beyond the common grades. Jacob was apprenticed to a silver¬ 
smith, and grew up industrious and respected. In his seven¬ 
teenth year, he was converted in a revival conducted by 
William R. Rhinehart. He joined the United Brethren Church, 
although his parents were traditionally connected with the 
Lutheran church. He at once became a leader in religious 
meetings made up of young people, and soon afterward, with¬ 
out any expectation on his part, a license to exhort, signed by 
George A. Gee ting, the son of George A. Geeting, the associate 
of Otterbein, was placed in his hand. As we have seen, in 
1831, at the first separate session of the Virginia conference, 
he was licensed to preach. He was a little above medium 
height, and of corresponding weight, with no facial features 
on which a cartoonist could seize, and with no singularity of 
manners. He was one of the most even tempered, studious, 
and diligent men ever admitted to the ministry of the United 
Brethren Church. Some men with his evenness would have 
been tame, but with him tenderness, fervor, and purpose 
matched the other splendid qualities of his nature. Hence¬ 
forth, his history was that of his conference and the Church. 

William R. Rhinehart was in many ways the contrast of 
Mr. Glossbrenner. He had good wares to sell, and he knew 
well how to advertise them, as we shall see as we go forward. 
He was a gifted speaker, of lively imagination, always ready 
to contend for what he believed to be right. He was a man of 
splendid physique and great physical strength. He was a 
marvelous singer, and assisted in producing books of hymns. 
He strongly opposed slavery, and was a fervent advocate of 
temperance. In 1834, he became the editor of a religious 


368 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


paper called the Mountain Messenger, and at the close of that 
year became the first editor of the Religious Telescope, at first 
published at Circleville, Ohio. In 1839, he resigned as editor 
and again devoted himself to the work of preaching, his labors 
being bestowed chiefly in the Miami conference. He was born 
November 28, 1800, and died at Dayton, Ohio, May 9, 1861. 
An incident showing his readiness to meet occasions occurred 
at a camp-meeting in Pennsylvania in 1832. After the camp¬ 
meeting had been announced, some members of a sister de¬ 
nomination announced another camp-meeting for the same 
time at a place only one mile distant. The United Brethren, 
feeling the need of a strong preacher using the English language, 
secured the service of Mr. Rhinehart. Early in the meeting, 
at the opening of a service at which he was to preach, he came 
down the aisle carrying on his shoulder a large sapling that he 
had wrested from the ground by his own strength, and stood 
it up against the rude platform which he mounted and began 
to sing, as only “Billy Rhinehart” could sing, and then de¬ 
livered a sermon that insured an audience for all of the oc¬ 
casions that were to follow. If he was spectacular at times, as 
indeed he often was, it w T as for a purpose. 

Henry Burtner was born in Cumberland county, Pennsyl¬ 
vania, May 6, 1800. In his eighteenth year, he was converted 
at a great meeting. He was licensed to preach in 1821, and 
in his twenty-first year he began the labors of a traveling 
preacher in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. In 1843 
he made his home on a farm adjacent to Dayton, Virginia. 
He was a large man, with a fine countenance and agreeable 
manners. He was a strong preacher in the German language. 
In his later life, he served as presiding elder and local preacher. 
He died January 5, 1857. His son, William H. Burtner, be¬ 
came a local preacher, and four of his sons became ministers; 
namely, L. 0. Burtner, N. W. Burtner, E. E. Burtner, and 
Otto W. Burtner. 

John Krack, who was licensed to preach at the same time 
when Mr. Rhinehart was licensed in 1825, was a strong preacher. 
He was the pastor of Otterbein’s Baltimore congregation for 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 369 


four years, 1831 to 1835, and the taking of him away at that 
time came near producing a division in the congregation. 

John Haney was one of the most original and rugged 
preachers of this early time. He was born in York county, 
Pennsylvania, April 10, 1807, and received license to preach 
in 1830. After preaching in Virginia and Pennsylvania until 
1857, he removed to Minnesota, where he resumed the active 
work of the ministry. He died November 8, 1904, in his 
ninety-eighth year. 

At this first session, a strong resolution was passed against 
distilling and vending ardent spirits. It was also ordered that 
Conrad Wiest, a prominent preacher, “ should quit selling 
liquor and preach more than he has done; if not, his license to 
be demanded and he be a member of the Church no longer/' 
Trustees were appointed “to build a house on Staunton 
circuit, furnishing it with all necessary furniture for the ac¬ 
commodation of a married preacher." But, with four preachers 
appointed to Staunton and Woodstock circuits, there might 
be a question as to who came to occupy the house. This is 
the first notice that we have of a preacher's parsonage outside 
of Baltimore. It was also ordered that preachers should re¬ 
tain all that they received from their circuits up to the stipu¬ 
lated amounts of $80 for a single preacher and $160 for a 
married preacher, instead of all amounts being thrown together 
and equal division made. 

The following list of appointments indicates the preaching 
force and the fields to be served: Hagerstown circuit, W. R. 
Rhinehart and Jacob Glossbrenner; Mechanicstown, John 
Miller and George A. Geeting; Staunton and Woodstock cir¬ 
cuits, John Zahn, Noah Woodyard, John Haney, and Jacob 
Houk. By an arrangement afterwards agreed upon, the 
Hagerstown and Mechanicstown circuits, the latter including 
Frederick county, were united and served together. It seems 
that the idea was to give the preachers a wide range so that 
they would not become rooted at any one place. 

In 1832, steps were taken toward the publishing of an 
English hymn book. This was brought about later through 
the cooperation of Jacob Erb, of Pennsylvania conference, and 


370 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


William R. Rhinehart. In 1833, W. R. Coursey, long active 
and useful, and George A. Shuey, of typical Virginian stock, 
became members of the conference. This year, South Branch 
circuit is named with J. M. Hershey as preacher in charge. 
He became a member of the conference in 1832, and after a 
number of years of efficient service was transferred to Saint 
Joseph conference. At the session of 1834, Jacob Bachtel 
was received. He soon became one of the leading members 
of the conference. He was strong, courageous, and outspoken. 
Through faithfulness in his work, his mind became thoroughly 
disciplined, and amid the difficult occasions that he came to 
meet he was masterful and discreet. On the formation of 
Parkersburg conference, in 1838, he cast his lot with that con¬ 
ference. He died October 23, 1866. His life is enshrined in 
a biography by Z. Warner. 

Perhaps the best idea of the extent of the field occupied 
by the Virginia conference in this period can be obtained from 
the list of appointments in 1839: Presiding elders, W. R. 
Coursey and J. Bachtel; Frederick circuit, George Gilbert and 
G. A. Shuey; Hagerstown, C. W. Zahn and J. Markwood; 
Winchester, D. S. Spessard; Woodstock, W. Edwards; Staun¬ 
ton, J. B. Houk; South Branch, J. Richards; Shiloh mission, 
J. J. Glossbrenner; Pendleton mission, S. Allenbaugh; Jackson 
mission, H. Jones. 

Jacob Markwood became a member of the conferences in 
1838. He was born at Charlestown, Virginia, (later West 
Virginia) December 25, 1818. As a boy preacher, he is de¬ 
scribed as of swarthy complexion, frail looking, but wiry, 
drawing the sympathy of his audience at the beginning of his 
sermons but afterward leading all to forget both themselves 
and him. He was original, daring, and eloquent. More will 
be said of him later. 

George B. Rimel became a member of the conference 
in 1832. It was several years before he took a prominent part 
in the work of the conference. He was a fine specimen of 
physical strength and vigor, the display of which was sufficient 
to quiet a whole regiment of rowdies. The rugged, impassioned 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 371 


preaching of “Uncle George” at camp-meetings was long 
remembered. 

The naming of Jackson mission calls attention to the 
extension of the work of the conference far to the west. The 
mission was in Jackson county, now in West Virginia, bordering 
on the Ohio river. The mission was formed under the labor 
of Moses Michael in 1836. Benjamin Stickley, won from a 
careless and wayward life, was licensed in 1840, and became 
the mountain evangelist in extending the Church in what 
now is West Virginia. 

Whitesel's church, in Rockingham county, Virginia, built 
about 1824, is said to have been the first United Brethren 
Church built in Virginia. In 1831, besides this church, the 
United Brethren had a half interest in another church, perhaps 
the union church near Christian Shuey's in Augusta county, 
and possibly at one time the full right to another in Woodstock. 
There seems to be good ground for believing that the “old 
church” in Woodstock, in which Newcomer preached in 1799 
and 1800, was a church built by the followers of Otterbein. 
While it is said that a lot in the town was held for a time by 
the United Brethren, there is no record as to the use made of 
it or of its disposal. The number of churches gradually in¬ 
creased. Nowhere else and at no time have preachers devoted 
themselves more chivalrously to the work of evangelization 
than did the itinerants of Virginia; but their work would have 
been more rapid, and certainly more permanent, if they could 
have enlisted the church membership more fully in sustaining 
the preaching of the gospel and the building of suitable church 
houses. 

From this rapid survey of the workers and the field in 
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, from approximately 
1817 to 1837, we now turn to the workers and the field in the 
fast-developing West. 

Miami Conference. 

Following the General Conference of 1817, the Miami 
conference convened June 17, at the widow Kramer's, on 
Walnut creek, in Fairfield county, Ohio. To refresh our minds 


372 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


as to the conference, we may notice the following roll of mem¬ 
bers present: Christian Newcomer and Andrew Zeller, bishops; 
John George Pfrimmer and John McNamar, secretaries; 
George Benedum, Daniel Troyer, Joseph Hoffman, and Lewis 
Kramer, elders; Jacob Lehman, Henry Joseph Frey, Jacob 
Zeller, John Smaltz, John Bauser, Dewalt Mechlin, Frederick 
Klinger, Philip Kramer, Noah Wheeler, preachers; Jacob Shoe¬ 
maker, exhorter. 

Bishop Kumler made this trip to Ohio in company with 
Joseph Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman had just completed his term 
of three years as pastor of Otterbein’s congregation in Balti¬ 
more, and was now planning to make Ohio his home, buying 
land on this trip and moving with his family the following year. 
Newcomer and Hoffman made an unrivaled gospel team. 
Immediately following the session of the conference, they 
preached a number of times in Cincinnati. Newcomer makes 
the following note in his Journal: “This evening we held 
meeting in the Methodist meeting house. Brother Hoffman 
spoke in the German. I followed him in the English language. 
The word spoken had considerable effect. Ten or twelve 
preachers came spontaneously forward and desired an interest 
in our prayers. The meeting was protracted till two o’clock 
in the morning.” 

At this session of the conference, Andrew Zeller officiated 
for the first time as Bishop. After an impressive sermon by 
Joseph Hoffman, he was ordained as Bishop with the laying on 
of hands by Bishop Newcomer and elders Hoffman, Benedum, 
and Pfrimmer. The most of the work the preceding year was 
performed by local preachers, or, by the presiding elders, as 
there were four of them—Andrew Zeller and Daniel Troyer for 
Miami district, and George Benedum and Abraham Hiestand 
for the New Lancaster district. John McNamar, as an itinerant 
preacher, had received $66.30, and an addition from Christian 
Newcomer of $8. Noah Wheeler has received $30.50 as an 
itinerant preacher, and an addition from Christian Newcomer 
of $10. The conference truly was in the period of beginnings, 
and yet there were some portents of larger and better things. 
Plans were being devised for securing a better support for 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 373 


preachers giving their full time, and an increasing number of 
preachers capable of preaching in the English language were 
coming into the ranks. “ Frederick Shauer, Lewis Kramer, 
and Jacob Adam Lehman gave themselves as traveling preach¬ 
ers for the Lancaster district/' and Noah Wheeler and John 
McNamar, “as much as he can,” for the Miami district. 

Some of the English preachers already enrolled were 
John McNamar, recognized as an exhorter in 1812, and re¬ 
ceived as a preacher in 1813, and Noah Wheeler, rece ved as 
a preacher in 1816. In 1815 and 1816, there were two secre¬ 
taries, one of whom could use the English language, but, be¬ 
ginning with 1817, one of the two secretaries was chosen as a 
regular English secretary, though the minutes of Miami con¬ 
ference, from deference or force of custom, were recorded in 
German down to 1837. John McNamar was the first English 
secretary for 1817 and the three sessions following, and was 
succeeded by Samuel Hiestand for two sessions. 

John McNamar. 

As John McNamar was the first English preacher in the 
Church, and as he was largely influential in the development 
of the Church in its English character, we may notice his 
career at some length. In the first place, we could not expect 
any extended course of history at this time in southern Ohio 
without a Scotch-Irishman coming into it. About the year 
1811, the people of Andrew Zeller's neighborhood, near Ger¬ 
mantown, desiring a school teacher, contracted with John 
McNamar, who resided at Fairfield, twenty-five miles distant, 
to serve them in this capacity. He was described by one that 
knew him at the time as a “small, lithe, sharp-visaged, pock¬ 
marked, witty man, careless alike in his temporal and spiritual 
interests.” He was born in 1779. When a “Mr. S.” with a 
large covered wagon was sent to bring the schoolmaster with 
his family and household goods to his new field of labor, he 
found a dancing party at his house, giving him a farewell. 
The simple, earnest piety of the German brethren with whom 
he now came to mingle made a profound impression on him, 
and not long after his arrival he was converted at a meeting in 


374 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Mr. Zeller’s barn. After holding a license to exhort for a 
year, in 1813 he sent a letter to the conference requesting a 
license to preach, which was granted him. In 1814 and 1816, 
and probably also in 1815, he was engaged in itinerating work. 
When, in 1817, it was said that he would travel “as much as 
he can,” the meaning was that he would give such time as not 
necessarily given to the supporting of his family, for he was 
poor and has a large family to care for. In 1818, he was to 
preach “after harvest,” and in 1819 he was “to form a new 
circuit,” possibly in Indiana. The next year, he was to travel 
a “mission from Lawrenceburg to Corydon,” Indiana. Two 
years later, we find him on Elizabeth and White Water circuits, 
in Indiana. From this time, he served as traveling preacher 
and presiding elder, principally in Indiana. In 1826, when 
inquiry was made as to connection with Masonry, he confessed 
to being a member of the order, but agreed to separation from 
the same. When Indiana conference went into its first session 
in 1830, he was enrolled as one of the active itinerants. In 
1831, the minutes named Henry Kumler, Sr. and John Mc- 
Namar, Bishops, the latter as chairman, being named as taking 
Bishop Newcomer’s place. Something a little beyond the 
chairman was meant when, in September, 1833, Henry Kum¬ 
ler, Sr. and John McNamar were named as Bishops. The 
preceding May, the General Conference, after reelecting Henry 
Kumler, Sr. one of the Bishops, elected “John McNamar 
assistant bishop—to aid Henry Kumler, or to act in his place 
in case of sickness or other adverse circumstances.” This 
statement is made in annual conference minutes printed in 
1833. In the General Conference minutes of 1833 no reference 
is made to the election of Bishops or to anything else beyond 
the revision of Discipline. It was probably at the session of 
the General Conference in 1833 that Henry Bonebrake was 
elected Bishop but declined to serve. In 1834, Henry Kumler, 
Sr., and John McNamar again are named in the Indiana con¬ 
ference minutes as Bishops, and in 1835, in the Indiana confer¬ 
ence minutes, John McNamar is named as Bishop along with 
John Lopp as chairman. The foregoing indicates the extent 
of McNamar’s service as “assistant Bishop.” In 1835, he was 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 375 


assigned to Flat Rock mission. He was a delegate to the 
General Conferences of 1821, 1829, and 1833, being a fore¬ 
runner, along with Nathaniel Havens, of representatives of 
English speech. Moving with the frontier, his later labors 
were in connection with the Wabash conference of which he 
became a member in 1841. He died in poverty and compara¬ 
tive neglect, in 1846, at the age of sixty-seven, having spent 
thirty-six years in the ministry. A conspicuous feature in his 
work was the number of persons that he led into the ministry. 
November 14, 1923, a suitable monument was placed at his 
long-neglected grave in Owen county, Indiana. 

Other English Preachers. 

In 1818, John McGee was received. He gave long and 
good service in the ministry. In 1819, four more English 
preachers were received—A. Shindledecker, Nathaniel Havens, 
S. S. Spicer, and Jacob Antrim. The career of Mr. Shindle¬ 
decker was unusual in many ways. His father was German 
and his mother was Irish. He had been a soldier, and his life 
was dissolute and ungodly. After a considerable part of his 
life had been worse than wasted, he experienced a remarkable 
conversion, and soon afterward entered on his long course as 
an itinerant preacher. He is described as “tall, spare, and 
ungainly in appearance.” When Auglaize conference was 
organized, in 1853, he identified himself with that conference, 
knowing the bad roads that were to be traveled, the meager 
pay that he would receive, and the privations awaiting him. 
Many people were converted under his labor and gathered 
into the Church. 

Nathaniel Havens was born December 13, 1772, in New 
Jersey. In early life he was a sailor and clerked in an East 
Indiaman. He was, or claimed to be, a confirmed skeptic. 
His conversion was as loud and boisterous as if he had been a 
Pennsylvania German. Removing to the West, he joined the 
Miami conference, and at once began to preach. He was an 
able preacher and a successful evangelist. He was a man of 
commanding appearance and pleasing address. He was a 
member of the General Conferences of 1821 and 1825. When 


376 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the Scioto conference was formed, in 1825, he became a mem¬ 
ber of that conference. He died May 15, 1832. 

S. S. Spicer was a native of New England. He had the 
advantages of a good education, and had studied law. He 
had a glowing imagination and a masterly command of lan¬ 
guage. Lawrence relates the following: "In one instance, in 
a camp-meeting in the Miami valley, all the ministers in the 
stand were so affected that they dropped upon their knees 
while he was preaching, and sinners fell on all sides or fled in 
the utmost terror.” His promising course was cut short early 
by death. 

Perhaps no name has a more living survival in the Miami 
valley than that of Jacob Antrim. While he preached much 
in German, his use of the German was far from faultless. He 
was born in Berks county, Pennsylvania, in 1792, and after his 
conversion was brought to Ohio by Bishop Newcomer, in 1818, 
receiving license to exhort in that year. He was a great re¬ 
vivalist and an untiring worker. He was a splendid singer, and 
published the second English hymn book for the use of the 
United Brethren in Christ. He died February 19, 1861. 

At the session of 1820, William Stubbs and James Ross 
were added to the English preaching force. The former labored 
efficiently in Ohio and Indiana, representing the Miami con¬ 
ference in the General Conference of 1837. He was of Quaker 
descent. James Ross was a man of good presence, dignified 
and sociable, and a fluent speaker. He entered successfully on 
the work of an itinerant preacher. At the formation of the 
Scioto conference, in 1825, he attached himself to that con¬ 
ference, representing the same in two General Conferences. 
His work as an itinerant took him up into the Sandusky 
country. 

Another English preacher, William Stewart, becoming a 
member of the conference in 1821, entered with great en¬ 
thusiasm upon the work of an itinerant preacher. By his 
strength of character, splendid abilities, and glowing devotion, 
he drew to him the affections of the people and turned scores 
to Christ. When, after eight short years, his course was ter¬ 
minated by death, the loss by his going was felt deeply. 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1887—CONTINUED 377 


A great accession to the English preaching force came 
through the enlistment of the six Bonebrake brothers, the sons 
of Dewalt Bonebrake, whose home was in Preble county, 
Ohio. On the land of one of the sons—there were eleven in 
all—the second United Brethren church north of the Ohio 
River was built. The class was formed in 1808, and the 
church was built in 1815. The names of the six preachers, 
all of them stalwart and useful, make an inspiring roll. 
George was a man of superior mind, commanding influence, 
and great spiritual power. He was a member of three Gen¬ 
eral Conferences. Later, he labored in the Des Moines con¬ 
ference, in Iowa. His last days were spent in Kansas. 
Henry was talented and active. After years of labor 
in the Miami conference, he transferred his membership to 
Indiana Conference, from which he was twice a delegate to 
the General Conference. Later, he transferred his labors to 
Iowa. It is said that he once was elected Bishop, but declined 
the office. A combined statement for the six Bonebrake 
brothers may be given as follows: Frederick, born December 
25, 1785, licensed in 1826, died July 27, 1849; Conrad, born 
May 10, 1791, licensed 1823, died February 15, 1874; Peter, 
born November 13, 1794, licensed 1824, died September 16, 
1842; Daniel, born June 16, 1797, licensed 1821, died July 18, 
1856; George, born 1799, licensed 1822, died February 3, 1866; 
Henry, born October 18, 1801, licensed 1821, died April 15, 
1866. 

It was not without propriety that J. M. Bonebrake, him¬ 
self a layman, a son of one of the Bonebrake brothers that did 
not enter the ministry, should, by his gift for endowment, 
name the theological seminary of the Church in honor of his 
six preacher uncles. 

Samuel Hiestand and Henry Kumler, Jr., joined the con¬ 
ference in 1820. Both preached in German and in English. 
To Kumler, the German came first and then the English, while 
both came alike to Hiestand. Both became Bishops. Hiestand 
already has been noticed, and Kumler will receive our attention 
later. 


378 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The prominence given to the English recruits does not 
mean any disparagement to the German working force, East 
or West, but simply sets forth the factor so necessary at this 
time if the Church was to grow and hold for itself a permanent 
and self-respecting place among the religious forces of our 
land. It is an occasion of surprise down to this day how 
harmoniously and efficiently the German and English preachers 
worked together in the same conferences and on the same 
charges in seeking to build up the kingdom of God. 

Up to the time when the first division of the Miami con¬ 
ference was made, in 1825, six sessions were held in the Miami 
district, four of them at Andrew Zeller's, eight in the Scioto 
or Lancaster district, and two in Indiana. 

Before passing from the large, undivided field of the 
Miami conference, we may get a good idea of the territory em¬ 
braced and the force of itinerant preachers at work by exam¬ 
ining the list of assignments to fields of labor for the year 1822. 
Yet, such a list is not fully representative. Active preachers 
could not continue uniformly in the work because of meager 
support. Likewise, the names of charges are very indefinite, 
many appointments and even counties often being embraced. 
The following are the appointments for 1822: Indian circuit 
(west of Hamilton, Ohio), Henry Kumler, Sr., P. E., Jacob 
Antrim and William J. Huff, preachers; Elizabeth and White- 
water circuits (in Indiana), M. Bottenberg, P. E., John Mc- 
Namar and William R. Ellis, preachers on Elizabeth circuit, 
William Stubbs and Harland Robins, preachers on the White 
Water circuit; Cincinnati and Miami circuits, Henry J. Frey, 
P. E., George Bonebrake, preacher, on Cincinnati circuit, and 
Samuel Spicer and Alden Bess, preachers on Miami circuit; 
Twin Creek and Greenville circuits, George Hoffman, P. E., 
Jacob Daup, preacher on Twin Creek circuit, and Daniel 
Bonebrake, preacher on Greenville circuit. Appointments 
following belong to the district east of the Miami district: 
Brush Creek and Washington circuits, William Ambrose, 
P. E., William Stewart and Joseph Dewitt, preachers on Brush 
Creek circuit, and John Dewitt, preacher on Washington 
circuit; Canicanick and Lancaster circuits, George Benedum 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 379 


and John Schmaltz, P. E's., James Ross, preacher on Cani- 
canick circuit, and Henry Bonebrake, preacher on Lancaster 
circuit; New Philadelphia, John Eckart and George Ellicken- 
haus, circuit preachers. Why the Miami conference should be 
sending two of its itinerants to the New Philadelphia circuit 
within the bounds of Muskingum conference, is not apparent. 

Scioto Conference Formed. 

June 11, 1824, the members of Miami conference met 
together for the last time before the division leading to the 
formation of the Scioto conference. The place of meeting was 
at Abraham Bookwalter’s, in Ross county, Ohio. A matter 
of chief interest was the division of the Miami conference, 
spoken of as the parent conference of the West. It was agreed 
that the division should be made, and that the “Black Swamp” 
should mark the line of division. The General Conference that 
met the following year carried into effect the desires of the 
conference, and thus another conference, under the name 
Scioto, found its place on the map. The following expression, 
from Bishop Newcomer's Journal for the time of the conference 
of 1824, indicates the conditions existing and the spirit pre¬ 
vailing at that time: “Bless the Lord! The report of the 
brethren is encouraging. Our borders are rapidly enlarging in 
every direction. Peace and harmony are prevailing. Lord, 
let thy kingdom come and thy will be done on earth as it is 
done in heaven.” 

Miami conference, within its reduced bounds, met at 
Miltonville, Butler county, Ohio, August 8, 1825. This was 
the first conference session in Ohio that Bishop Newcomer did 
not attend. After attending the sessions of the Muskingum 
conference, the General Conference, and the Scioto conference, 
he would have had to remain in Ohio for nearly another month 
in order to attend the session of the Miami conference. So 
the pleasant task of presiding was left to Henry Kumler, Sr., 
the new Bishop, within his own immediate community. John 
G. Pfrimmer was made chairman. It would seem that the 
conference must have met in a church at Miltonville, as it 
surely did three years later. Otherwise, the minutes would 


380 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


have read, “met at Henry Kumler's,” or at the chapel in his 
house. The charges supplied were Corydon, by George Bone- 
brake; Charlestown, by Aaron Farmer, Orange, by Francis 
Whitcom, Flat Rock, by J. Williams and A. Garrison; White 
Water, by J. Mahan and J. Fetterhoff; Twin Creek, by D. 
Bonebrake and J. Antrim; Miami, by J. Alsof and J. Harvey; 
Cincinnati, by A. Carder and William Ballard; Scioto, by D. 
Slucker. The first five charges named were in Indiana, and 
the last four in Ohio. Why a Scioto circuit should be named is 
not clear. John Morgan and Aaron Farmer were received into 
the conference this year. They, as well as J. Mahan and 
Francis Whitcom, all of whom labored principally in Indiana, 
will be noticed further in connection with the work in Indiana. 

The conference met June 6, 1826, at Clear Creek chapel, 
Warren county, Ohio, near the home of Joseph Frey. It de¬ 
veloped at this session that three of the most prominent mem¬ 
bers of the conference, Alfred Carder, John McNamar, and 
Aaron Farmer, had become connected with the Freemasons. 
The conference passed a resolution strongly disapproving con¬ 
nection with the order on the part of members of the conference. 
All of the members of conference, including the three just 
named, seemed to acquiesce in the action taken, Carder, 
however, withdrew from the Church and soon ceased to preach. 
In 1828, Joseph Ball, a New Englander, was deprived of his 
license because of having become a Freemason, but a few years 
later, having relinquished connection with the order, he again 
became an active member of the conference. This was the 
beginning of the long agitation and struggle in the Church 
against secret societies. Other annual conferences, and the 
General Conference in 1829, took a strenuous position against 
Freemasonry. The agitation and opposition at that time 
were not confined to the churches, but extended to all classes. 

Since the last session of the conference, John George 
Pfrimmer, in Indiana, had gone to his reward. At this session, 
John Denham, F. Bonebrake, and William Ballard were 
received. 

In 1827, the session of the conference was held at Corydon, 
Indiana. Bishop Henry Kumler, Sr., and Henry Kumler, Jr., 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 381 


gave to Bishop Newcomer the luxury of a ride in a carriage 
from Butler county, Ohio, to Corydon and return. On this 
trip, Newcomer's heart was nearly broken over some bitter 
troubles among the older preachers in Indiana. At this session, 
the following new names were added to the conference roll: 
C. Key, John Lopp, Silas Davis, Daniel Kumler, F. Kenoyer, 
and John Hoobler. Aside from the usual features connected 
with appointments to charges, the list for this year includes the 
appointment of Daniel Kumler and Henry Kumler, Jr., to the 
Lancaster circuit, which was in the Scioto conference territory. 
Already we have noticed two such cases. The facts in this 
case seem to make clear that Bishop Newcomer, in harmony 
with a general understanding, used his influence to supply 
needs beyond established conference lines. From the pen of 
Henry Kumler, Jr., we have a detailed account of his work on 
Lancaster circuit. 

In 1828, the conference met at Miltonville chapel, Butler 
county, Ohio. Benjamin Abbot was among the preachers 
received. J. Mahan was sent as the pioneer preacher or mis¬ 
sionary to the upper Wabash region. In 1824, he became a 
member of Miami conference, having been a minister in the 
Regular Baptist church until middle life. He had superior 
preaching abilities, and was possessed of high moral and social 
qualities. He volunteered for the task, notwithstanding his 
premonitions that he should not return. After a few months 
of labor, he fell at his post. John Denham was sent the next 
year to take his place. 

A most notable act of the Miami conference at its session 
in 1829 was the authorizing of the publication of a religious 
newspaper as shown by the following resolution: 

Resolved by the Miami conference to approbate the publi¬ 
cation of "Zion's Advocate" with the following restrictions: 

1. It is to contain doctrine consonant with the Church of 
the United Brethren in Christ. 

2. It is not to be devoted to unprofitable controversy. 

3. It is to be printed on good paper, and neatly executed. 

4. It is to be edited by Aaron Farmer. 


382 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


“Zion's Advocate" was issued from Salem, Washington 
county, Indiana, in 1829, but after a brief existence was dis¬ 
continued from want of adequate support. 

The relation of this enterprise to publications that came 
later already has been noticed in connection with the account 
of the action of the General Conference of 1833 in providing 
for the founding of the Printing Establishment. At the session 
of the General Conference in 1829, the division of Miami 
conference had been authorized. Thus, at this last session of 
the undivided conference, feelings of sadness mingled with 
feelings of hope and thankfulness. Men that had shared in 
the counsels and labors of years had reached the parting of the 
ways. Some were to remain in their accustomed places, and 
others were to go out to new borders. Miami conference was 
to lose more than half of its territory and preaching force. Its 
slightly larger membership for the time was more than balanced 
by the larger proportion of younger and more aggressive 
workers in the new conference. Bishop Newcomer was not 
to return again. Beginning with 1810, he had visited Ohio 
every year except in 1811, and had presided at every session of 
the Miami conference except that of 1825. On only six of his 
trips to Ohio did he fail to visit the Miami valley. Several 
times, he crossed into Kentucky. Three times, he visited the 
Sandusky region and three times Indiana. He went home to 
lay his worn and tired body in the tomb. His great soul went 
to meet the Lord of the harvest. 

The Miami conference in its reduced form, convened 
May 26, 1830, at Clear Creek chapel, Warren county, Ohio, 
Bishop Henry Kumler, Sr., presiding. We have only snatches 
from the minutes to guide us. Fetterhoff says: “Many of the 
old preachers were living and present—Andrew Zeller, Joseph 
Hoffman and his brother George, Daniel Troyer, and Joseph 
Frey." The main task of the conference was to plan for a 
more intensive cultivation of the narrowed field remaining 
under its care. 

In 1833, an effort was made to establish the Church in 
Cincinnati. Joseph Hoffman was appointed the preacher for 
“Cincinnati station." He served for two and a half months, 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 383 


and a church building was at least partially completed, but the 
conference at its next session ordered the property sold to pay 
debts, any amount received beyond what was necessary to 
pay debts to remain under the control of the conference. In 
1838, a “Cincinnati station” again was named. In 1838, the 
charges named were Twin Creek, Four Mile, Germantown, 
Stillwater, Greenville, Cincinnati station, Cincinnati circuit, 
Miami, Clear Creek, with George Bonebrake and Frederick 
Bonebrake as the best-known preachers. While progress had 
not been rapid, a foundation was being laid for more successful 
building in the following period. 

We may now turn our attention toward the beginnings in 
connection with the newly constituted Indiana conference. 

Indiana Conference. 

Indiana became a territory in 1800, with William Henry 
Harrison as governor, and was admitted as a State in 1816. 
With the victory over the Indians at Tippecanoe, in 1811, and 
especially after the War of 1812, peaceable settlement was 
possible everywhere. We have noticed the beginnings of 
United Brethren occupation in Harrison county, in connection 
with the settlement there in 1808 of John George Pfrimmer, 
and Corydon circuit as the outgrowth. In connection with the 
Miami conference, White Water circuit, extending from the 
southern part of the State along the Ohio line as far north as 
Wayne county, frequently has been named. Charlestown, in 
Clark county, became an important center. A charge by the 
name of Orange with Orange county as its center, appeared 
steadily in the list of charges. The Flat Rock charge, in 
Shelby county and adjoining counties likewise was named 
regularly. Washington circuit was recognized early. From 
the southern part of the State, it is quite a leap to go up to the 
middle course of the Wabash to Fountain, Warren, and Benton 
counties, which began to be occupied in 1828 and 1829. 

We may look now at the work through the help of the 
conference minutes. The first session of the Indiana conference 
was held May 25, 1830, at the Stonecipher meeting house, 
about two and one-half miles south of Corydon, Bishop Henry 


384 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Kumler, Sr., presiding. Michael Bottenberg was made chair¬ 
man, “to take his seat with the Bishop, filling the vacancy 
occasioned by the death of Bishop Newcomer.” The following 
is the list of charter members: Michael Bottenberg, Henry 
Bonebrake, Craven Lynn, John Denham, George Brown, 
Josiah Coen, Francis Whitcom, John McNamar, Aaron 
Farmer, John Morgan, Chandler Doud, Daniel Hains, Benja¬ 
min Abbott, Daniel Fleming, Crassy D. Key, Byram Stacy, 
Frederick Kenoyer, John Hoobler, and Josiah Davis. Those 
named were present. The following were listed as absent 
members: Bennet Fryer, William Stubbs, Abraham Garrison, 
John Lopp, Silas Davis, John McGinnis, Benjamin McArty, 
David Thomas, John Jackson, David Penwell, Joseph Williams, 
John Hetzler. Six persons were granted license—Obed Nolin, 
James Hains, William Davis, Joseph McAllan, James Griffith, 
Jonathan Paddox, making thirty-seven members at the end 
of the session. 

The following is the list of assignments: White Water, 
Nolin and Doud; Tanner’s Creek, McNamar and W. Davis; 
Flat Rock, Griffith; Charlestown, Stacy; Orange, Kenoyer; 
Cory don, Key; Coal Creek, Hoobler; Wea, Josiah Davis. 
The presiding elders were George Brown and Francis Whitcom. 
For some reason, the names of Aaron Farmer, Benjamin 
Abbott, and John Denham, leading itinerants, do not appear 
in the list of those taking work. It appears, however, from the 
report to the next session of the conference, that J. Denham 
received $100, and Joseph Williams $15.30 for service on an 
“Illinois” charge in the year 1830-31. For the years 1831 and 
1832, the work bore the name Bloomington, with Denham as 
preacher. In 1833, the work bore the name Mackanaw, with 
John Spradling as preacher. 

The second session of the Indiana conference was held 
August 30, 1831, at the forks of Coal Creek, Fountain county, 
Indiana, at the house of the widow Hoobler. She was an elect 
woman in building up and sustaining the work of the Church 
in this new country. This year the conference elected John 
McNamar “to fill the vacancy” caused by Bishop Newcomer’s 
death. 


BISHOP G. M. MATHEWS 


BISHOP N. CASTLE 



PRESENT BOARD OF BISHOPS 

WILLIAM M. BELL A. R. CLIPPINGER W. M. WEEKLEY 

W. H. WASHINGER H. H. FOUT C. J. KEPHART 















W. J. SHUEY 




> 




' 


WILLIAM McKEE 


W. R. FUNK 


ROBERT COWDEN 





PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 385 


August 28,1832, the conference met in Franklin county, in 
the Franklin meeting house, then one year old, now the oldest 
United Brethren meeting house in Indiana remaining from the 
early times. Bishop H. Kumler, Sr., presided, and Crasse Key 
was elected assistant to the Bishop. 

September 5, 1833, the conference met in the Union meet¬ 
ing house, on Flat Rock circuit, in Shelby county. This session 
followed the session of the General Conference of 1833. At 
this session of the annual conference, Henry Kumler, Sr., and 
John McNamar are named together as Bishops. 

At the session of 1833, there was a definite division of the 
conference territory into the Wabash and the Indiana districts. 
This naturally would follow if the General Conference, meeting 
a few months before, had authorized the formation of a new 
conference, to be called the Wabash conference. Apparently, 
recognizing such an authorization or order at this session, 
in 1833, “it was unanimously agreed on that Wabash and 
Indiana conferences should meet together again on the second 
Tuesday in September (1834) at Jeremiah Davis', Warren 
county, Indiana." It would seem, therefore, to be evident 
that the General Conference had provided for the division. 
From the first, the Discipline reserved such authority to the 
General Conference. The fact that the minutes of the General 
Conference do not refer to such an authorization has no signifi¬ 
cance for, as before indicated, the minutes for 1833 are scarcely 
minutes at all. 

No regular Bishop was present at the sessions of Indiana 
conference in 1834 and 1835, and John McNamar was recog¬ 
nized as Bishop without an election, just as without an election 
he was recognized as a Bishop along with Bishop Kumler, Sr., 
in 1833. In 1836, Bishops Kumler, Sr., and Hiestand presided. 

At the united session of the two conferences, in 1834, it 
was ordered that the next session of the Indiana conference be 
held at Cory don, Harrison county, Indiana, September 1, 
1835, and that Wabash conference “be held at Bro. Rawling's 
meeting house in Park county, Indiana, September 15, 1835." 

The Indiana conference, minus those that went out to 
form the Wabash conference, met in 1835 as per appointment 


386 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


given above, John McNamar, “Bishop’' presiding, assisted by 
John Lopp, chairman. As might have been expected, a good 
deal of the strength and aggressiveness of the old conference 
went into the new organization. Of the better-known preachers 
remaining were, Henry Bonebrake, John Lopp, Aaron Davis, 
Joseph A. Ball, Francis Whitcom, John Morgan, Aaron Farmer, 
and John Blair. With such men in the regular preaching force, 
a steady advance might well be expected. Francis Whitcom, 
after a few years, became the stationed preacher for a time in 
Cincinnati, in the Miami conference, but later moved to 
Indiana. John Blair was engaged in planting the Church in 
Kentucky. At this session of the conference, the name of 
Abraham Hiestand was placed on the conference roll. He 
was one of the pioneer preachers in the Lancaster region, 
in Ohio, but having removed to Indiana, owing to some difficul¬ 
ties that arose, he lost his conference connection in 1820. 

In 1836, the session was held in the Abbington meeting 
house, in Wayne county, Indiana. In 1837, the conference met 
at Anspaugh’s schoolhouse, in Decatur county, Indiana. In the 
first years following the formation of the Wabash conference, 
the apparent gains in Indiana conference were but slight, but 
omens of better and larger things already were appearing. 

Wabash Settlement. 

We turn now to notice the first few years of the Wabash 
conference, which in a sense was the mother conference to all 
the West. The ground for this we shall see as we proceed. The 
planting of the Church on the upper or middle course of the 
Wabash is a matter of interest. Some United Brethren families 
moved to that region from Harrison county, Indiana, but a 
colony of United Brethren, as it might be called, migrated 
thither from southern Ohio, a considerable number being from 
the Taylor’s Creek community, a few miles west of Cincinnati. 

In 1890, Adam Shambaugh, a pioneer preacher in Wis¬ 
consin, whose early life was spent in Indiana, a few miles west of 
Lafayette, wrote a pamphlet under the name, “Early Days on 
the Wabash,” in which he gives an account of the United 
Brethren families settling in that part of the country, and of the 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 387 


early preachers locating there, and of the preachers there 
raised up as well. The account furnishes much definite knowl¬ 
edge, given with such warmth of appreciation, that some of its 
sketches, much as first penned, may be transferred to these 
pages. The spirit and purpose of the sketches are well given in 
the following preliminary statement: “To the end that a 
memorial (though small) be erected to the memory of John 
Hoobler, Frederick Kenoyer, James Griffith, and James Davis, 
the first successful United Brethren ministers on the Wabash, 
and who so well deserve a higher meed of praise, comes this 
little tablet." 

The widow Hoobler, who truly was a mother in Israel, 
came at an early day from Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, 
to Montgomery county, Ohio, along with others of her large 
family, including her oldest son, John, who already was married. 
John Hoobler was converted in 1823, while living near German¬ 
town. The next year he moved to Taylor's Creek, a few miles 
west of Cincinnati, where Peter Brown and his sons then were 
living. The sons, John, Simon, and David, and William, who 
remained in Pennsylvania and later became a Bishop, all were 
or became preachers. David Brown married the daughter of 
Henry Evinger, a charter member of the Miami conference. 
Their daughter married Rev. 0. Hadley, and, along with her 
husband, became a missionary to Africa. Peter Brown was a 
close friend of Bishop Newcomer, was a man of marked religious 
experience, and was a sagacious and earnest leader in class 
meetings. The widow Hoobler was the sister of Peter Brown. 
The United Brethren class on Taylor's Creek was noted for 
its great spiritual fervor and religious activity. About a score 
of United Brethren preachers went forth from this community. 
In the fall of 1826, the Hoobler and Brown families furnished 
the center of a colony that migrated two hundred miles to the 
West, and located at the bend of the Wabash, a few miles west 
of Lafayette. The Hooblers located at the “forks of Coal 
Creek," in Fountain county. Margaret Hoobler built a large 
two story house to serve both as a dwelling and a place of 
worship. The second session of the Indiana conference, in 
1831, was held at her house, as also the second session of 


388 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Wabash conference, in 1836. Her “whole soul was devoted to 
the cause of “God,” and “she loved her church almost to 
adoring.” Peter Brown, her brother, left money to build the 
Pond Grove church, in Warren county. It may be added that 
his son, Bishop William Brown, moved to the Wabash settle¬ 
ment in 1838, and that in consequence of a donation in land 
by his son, William Otterbein Brown, the town of Otterbein, in 
Benton county, received its name. Surely, when at the last the 
roll of worthies shall be made up, the names of Margaret 
Hoobler and Peter Brown will be found well up in the list. 

No sooner had John Hoobler completed the building of his 
own cabin than he began to build for the Lord. He already had 
received quarterly conference license. Three miles from his 
home, he found Jacob, John, and Daniel Bonebrake and their 
families, and “father and mother Baker” and their children, 
who had been members of the United Brethren Church. Here 
he organized a class. He organized a second class in the com¬ 
munity in which lived Adam Hetzler and wife, formerly of 
Brown's Run, Butler county, Ohio. He organized a third class 
near Lopp's prairie, where Simon Brown had located. At these 
three places, he preached every two weeks. He journeyed to 
Ohio and reported his work to Bishop Henry Kumler, Sr., who 
had counseled and encouraged him in earlier years. As he 
would not be able to be present at the conference, the Bishop 
gave him his examination, and the Miami conference, at its 
meeting in 1827, gave him license to preach. The beginning, as 
thus indicated, was followed by the constituting of the Wabash 
circuit and the appointment of J. Mahan to the same. He 
lived but a few months, but was permitted to rejoice over the 
results of one good revival. The next year, John Denham was 
appointed to Wabash circuit. Local testimony is to the effect 
that he came to Wabash settlement, in Warren county, in 
1828, and held a meeting in the cabin of William Bailey, and 
that he organized a class at that time. It is possible that, after 
the death of J. Mahan, he might have visited the community 
and have given more or less service. It is said that in 1829-30 
he conducted a revival of wide influence at Green Hill. 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 389 


Wabash Conference. 

With this glimpse at the settlement on the Wabash and 
the favorable beginnings there, we may turn to notice the 
cultivation of the entire field through the efforts of the newly 
formed Wabash conference. The first session was held at 
Rawling’s meeting house, Park county, Indiana, beginning 
September 15, 1835, Bishop Brown presiding. The members 
present were, William Davis, Josiah Davis, James Griffith, 
John Hoobler, George Brown, John Denham, James Davis, 
Elijah T. Cook, James T. Timmons, John Stewart, Joseph 
Ashby, John Burns, William Robinson. Those receiving license 
were, Daniel Fawcett, Simon Brown, David Brown, and Mark 
Grimes, making seventeen preachers present, besides the 
Bishop. Henry Evinger, a charter member of the Miami con¬ 
ference, had died during the year. The appointments for the 
year were the following: Wabash district, William Davis, 
P. E.; Pine Creek, William Davis; St. Joseph, James Griffith; 
Wea, E. T. Cook; Coal Creek, James Davis; Vermilion, Josiah 
Davis: Illinois district, John Denham; Mackanaw circuit, 
James T. Timmons. Some United Brethren families from 
Scioto conference had moved to McLean county, Illinois, the 
third county from the Indiana line. A small stream in this 
county gave the name, Mackanaw, to the circuit which was 
before called Bloomington, from the leading town. The 
incursions that John Denham and others made to minister to 
these families were the beginning of the United Brethren work 
in Illinois. However, some work near the Indiana line must 
early have been done. 

The second session of the conference was held at the house 
of the widow Hoobler. The working force of the conference 
continued much the same as that of the preceding year. Fred¬ 
erick Kenoyer, who was living in Harrison county, Indiana, 
and had remained with the Indiana conference, was asked to 
serve Pine Creek circuit. He said to his wife, who was a daugh¬ 
ter of John George Pfrimmer, that he could not go as he had 
only a bushel of corn and twenty-five cents to leave with the 
family. She replied, “Frederick, go, the Lord will take care 
of me and the children.” He travelled the one hundred and 


390 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


eighty miles to his nearest appointment, and so endeared him¬ 
self to the people that they gave money to enable him to move 
his family to his place of work. Jeremiah and Jacob Kenoyer, 
later prominent in the ministry of the Church, were his sons. 

The name of William Brown, Bishop from 1833 to 1837, 
appears on the conference roll in 1838. From this time until 
his death, thirty years later, his home was in Benton county, 
Indiana, in the midst of relatives and friends. For many years 
he was interested and active in all of the work of the conference. 
This same year, John Fetterhoff, long a prominent preacher in 
the Miami conference, whose sister was the wife of John Hoob- 
ler, settled in Park county, Indiana, and joined in the work of 
the Wabash conference with his accustomed vigor. New 
charges were not being added rapidly, but old charges were 
being strengthened. In connection with the Wabash confer¬ 
ence, we soon shall hear of a “Wisconsin mission,” a “Rock 
River mission,” and an “Iowa mission.” 

Prominent Preachers. 

We now may turn our attention to some of the leading 
preachers of the Indiana and Wabash conferences, of whom no 
special notice has been taken. 

Henry Bonebrake was a charter member of Indiana con¬ 
ference. He was a man of quick and strong impulses, but of 
steady purposes. He was a good preacher and successful 
revivalist. 

John Denham was characteristically a frontiersman. His 
labors extended to the Wabash, to central Illinois, to Wiscon¬ 
sin, and even to Iowa. 

Aaron Farmer has been referred to as being the first to see 
the need of a religious newspaper and to make an effort to 
supply that need. As a circuit preacher, and as a presiding 
elder, he labored with great zeal, and with love and fidelity 
toward all of his associates. 

John Morgan and Benjamin Abbott left a record of de¬ 
voted, self-sacrificing labor, steadily and efficiently performed 
through a long term of years. It is to be regretted that, for 
such men, definite facts have not been handed down that might 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 391 


stand as a suitable memorial for their real character and 
service. 

Josiah and William Davis, brothers, were pioneer preachers 
in Indiana. The former had joined the Miami conference in 
1829, and the latter became a member of the Indiana conference 
at its first session, in 1830. They went together into the 
Wabash conference at its first session, in 1835. William Davis 
was born in the State of New York, January 3, 1812. His 
parents settled in Washington county, Indiana, in 1818. They 
were devout members of the Free Will Baptist church, and 
gave careful attention to the rearing of their children. In his 
youth, he had strong religious impressions, and was converted 
in 1828. Beginning with his becoming a member of the con¬ 
ference, he served with increasing success as an itinerant until 
the organization of the Wabash conference. He was ordained 
in 1832, and was sent that year to St. Joseph mission, three 
hundred miles from his home. He went on horseback, much of 
the way following Indian trails. Between Logansport and 
South Bend but two white families lived. His mission embraced 
three counties in Indiana and two in Michigan, with ten ap¬ 
pointments, among them Elkhart, Indiana, where he delivered 
the first sermon preached in the town. The salary reported 
for the year was fifty-three dollars. In 1834, when twenty-two 
years old, he was made presiding elder. In the Wabash con¬ 
ference, at its first session, in 1835, he was at once made presid¬ 
ing elder, serving a number of years in that capacity, and then 
again serving a single charge. In 1846 he wrote: 

I hunted up my old diary, by the aid of which I reached 
the following facts and conclusions: That I have been an 
itinerant minister in the church of the United Brethren in 
Christ sixteen years; that I have traveled for ministerial pur¬ 
poses fifty-four thousand two hundred miles; that I have 
preached (or tried to preach) five thousand one hundred and 
ten sermons; that I have received as an earthly remuneration 
$652; that the Lord has hitherto helped me; and that it would be 
wickedness to distrust so good a friend in time to come. 

My time has been spent chiefly on the frontier, among 
poor people; and, could I lead some of my rich brethren along 
the Indian trails, or more dimly-beaten paths, to the cabins 
in the woods, and introduce them to meanly-clad parents, 


392 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


surrounded by almost naked children, and let them worship and 
mingle their prayers, songs, and tears around the same altar, 
they too would love these poor brethren, excuse their scanty 
contributions, and of their abundance give something for the 
support of the missionary, who perhaps, with ragged clothes 
and naked knees (for I have preached with naked knees), is 
preaching on the frontiers. I do love the poor pioneer brethren 
in their cabins, and sympathize with the missionary who breaks 
to them, at great personal sacrifices, the bread of life. 

For a time Mr. Davis had the charge at Seven Mile, Ohio. 
He studied medicine and became a practicing physician, not 
forgetting, however, that preaching was his real work. For 
one year, he was the president of Otterbein University, as it 
then was called. In 1862, he accepted the pastorate of the 
United Brethren church at Muscatine, Iowa. Later, for a 
time, he was president of Western College. For a number of 
years, he was pastor at Lisbon and other places in Iowa. At 
length under his work he broke down and for several years 
before his death was incapacitated for any public service. He 
died January 31,1880. William Davis was largely self-educated. 
He was clear and searching in his thought. In his delivery, he 
was calm and collected. He was called the “old man eloquent 
of the United Brethren Church/' He was a member of the 
General Conferences of 1837, 1841, and 1849. 

The experiences and service of Josiah Davis were much the 
same as those of his brother William up to 1846, when he adopt¬ 
ed the tenets of Universalism and withdrew from the United 
Brethren Church. He long served as a preacher for the Uni- 
versalists. A public debate on Universalism, in which he had 
Bishop Weaver for his opponent, drew a great deal of attention. 

James Griffith received license to preach at the first 
session of Indiana conference, in 1830, and long was a faithful 
and efficient preacher in the Indiana and Wabash conferences. 
He had a fair education, was mild in his manner, yet earnest 
in purpose and unflagging in his ministerial work. He was the 
first United Brethren preacher, and perhaps the word preacher 
could be left off, to give a son the benefit of a liberal education. 
William R. Griffith, his son, became the principal of Otterbein 
University at its founding, and later was connected with 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 393 


Mount Pleasant College. James Griffith served many years as 
presiding elder. He was a delegate to the General Conferences 
of 1849, 1853, and 1857. He died January 10, 1877. 

John Hoobler was bom in Perry county, Pennsylvania, 
August 2, 1801. The account of his early ministry already has 
been given. Beginning with the formation of the Wabash con¬ 
ference, he for many years served almost continuously as cir¬ 
cuit preacher and presiding elder. He represented the county 
of Vermilion two terms in the Indiana legislature, and twice 
was a delegate to the General Conference. He was noted for 
the young men that he led into the ministry, and for the 
help and encouragement that he gave them in their early 
struggles. He moved to Livingstone county, Illinois, and be¬ 
came a member of Central Illinois conference. He died April 
16, 1886. 

Francis Whitcom was one of the strongest preachers and 
most energetic workers in the period to which he belonged. He 
was engaged in preaching in Indiana as early as 1825 and, when 
the Indiana conference was organized, in 1830, he was made 
one of the presiding elders. He served from 1838 to 1846 in 
the Miami conference. In 1846, he was transferred to the St. 
Joseph conference. He was a member of four General Con¬ 
ferences. He died November 16, 1846. His dust rests in a 
cemetery near Elkhart, Indiana. 

James Davis was converted under the labors of John 
Hoobler. At the time of his conversion, he could not read, but, 
having a glowing experience and desiring to win others to 
Christ and workers being few in the new frontier field, he was 
placed on a circuit. He went out, carrying with him an English 
spelling book and also a German spelling book. His own ex¬ 
perience was the subject of his first sermons, and from the first 
he had great success in winning souls to Christ. He came to be 
one of the leading preachers in the Wabash conference, and 
was the chief missionary in planting the Church in Wisconsin. 

Scioto Conference. 

Having followed the course of the Miami conference and 
of its branches and branchlets to the West, we now turn to 


394 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


notice the branch or fork springing in 1825 from the original 
Ohio conference, and known as the Scioto conference. The 
record of the first sessions of the Scioto conference disappeared 
before any use of it, unless a temporary one, had been made. 
So we are left to scanty materials in seeking to construct for 
ourselves an account or impression of the first stage in the work 
of the new conference. 

Following the request of the original conference in Ohio, 
as for the moment we may term it, the General Conference of 
1825 made the so-called "Black Swamp” the dividing line 
between the Miami conference on the west and the Scioto con¬ 
ference on the east. With a rich agricultural territory, favor¬ 
able also for diversified industries, there was every prospect of 
rapid progress and permanent building. The German popula¬ 
tion was large enough to furnish a beginning for the German 
evangelists, but not dense enough to prevent an easy transition 
to the use of the English language. In the counties first occu¬ 
pied, there already was a somewhat compact constituency, and 
there was a large virgin territory to the north, extending to Lake 
Erie. We should recall the labors of George Benedum, Abra¬ 
ham Hiestand, Dewalt Mechlin, Lewis Kramer, and their co¬ 
workers. 

The Scioto conference held its first session June 16, 1825, 
at the house of George Graul, in Fairfield county, Ohio. Bishop 
Newcomer and Henry Kumler, Sr., the newly elected Bishop, 
were present. 

The entire conference territory was included in what at 
first was called New Lancaster circuit. At the time when the 
conference was formed, the circuits were Washington (in and 
about Fayette and Highland counties), Lancaster, Brush 
Creek, and Canicanick. 

While we do not have the testimony of minutes as to those 
present at the first session, the following list, giving the names 
of those who were named later in the minutes of the conference, 
and are known to have had the right of membership when the 
conference was organized, may be helpful: Joseph Hoffman, 
John Russel, George Benedum, Dewalt Mechlin, Lewis 
Kramer, John Schmaltz, James Ross, William Stewart, Philip 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 395 


Kramer, Samuel Hiestand, William Ambrose, John Coons, 
Jacob Zeller, Jacob Adam Lehman, John Eckart, Nathaniel 
Havens, John Bauser, Joshua Montgomery, Joseph Dewitt, 
John Dewitt. William Hastings joined this force of preachers 
in 1828, and Elias Vandemark in 1829, the same year in which 
the lamented William Stewart dropped from the ranks. Al¬ 
most to a man, the persons named were men of well-known 
strength and devotion. We may turn from our lament over 
the loss of the minutes that should give us a knowledge of the 
transactions of the conference, to notice some of the leading 
members of the conference. We are not to forget Bishop 
Newcomer, who was present at all of the sessions of the con¬ 
ference up to and including that of 1829. Joseph Hoffman 
moved to Fairfield county in 1818, and remained until about 
1832. Thus, the territory of this conference was home soil to 
him. He had just completed his four-year term as Bishop, and 
now, with all of his accustomed zeal, he threw himself into the 
work of the conference. John Russel had done itinerant work 
in different parts of Ohio and Indiana, but he had married and 
was now a regular resident of Fairfield county. His life will 
be noticed further as he becomes a Bishop in the Church. The 
ministry of William Ambrose began earlier than that of any 
other member of the conference, beginning in Virginia in 1792. 
Hating slavery, and sensing the gathering storm in consequence 
of it, he came to Ohio in 1815, and settled in Highland county. 
Through his influence and labor, there came to be an excellent 
society of United Brethren in his community. He took an 
active interest in the work of the conference, serving a part of 
the time as local presiding elder. His two sons, Lewis and 
Matthias, became useful ministers in the Church. He died 
August 23, 1850. 

John Coons became a member of Miami conference in 
1822. His home placed him within the bounds of Scioto con¬ 
ference. More will be said of him as he becomes a Bishop in the 
Church. 

William Hastings was a living proof that the preachers 
were not all “Dutch.” He was a typical New Englander, having 
been born in New Hampshire. He was converted in Vermont, 


396 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


and came to Ohio in 1813. Bishop Edwards said of him: 
“He was a man of good information and excellent sense, an 
extraordinary preacher, and a first-rate counsellor.” Although 
not possessed of much property, he bequeathed $100 to mis¬ 
sions, and special sums to the support of his local church. He 
died February 17, 1848. 

John Eckart was born in Germany. After becoming a 
preacher among the United Brethren, he made two trips to 
Germany, and there carried on some evangelistic work. He 
did some itinerant work in the Muskingum and Sandusky 
conferences. 

James Kinney probably was a member of the conference 
from its beginning. He is described as one of the most saintly, 
devoted, and successful preachers belonging to the conference, 
preaching wherever there was an opportunity as long as life and 
breath remained. He was cut down in early life in the confer¬ 
ence year ending 1832. 

Joshua Montgomery was one of the sturdiest characters 
and most positive preachers and workers of the United Brethren 
Church. He was strenuous in the demands he made of the 
Church in its policy and administration, and of himself as well. 
He was a delegate to five sessions of the General Conference, 
and for a number of the sessions served as secretary. He died 
August 13, 1870. 

Elias Vandemark was uniformly active and successful 
for twenty-five years as an itinerant preacher and a presiding 
elder. For a number of years he sustained a superannuated 
relation at a time when the support for retired ministers was 
totally inadequate. Nathaniel Havens and James Ross, Eng¬ 
lish preachers, already have been spoken of. Presently, we 
shall meet the names of David Edwards, Lewis Davis, and Wil¬ 
liam Hanby, all of them later becoming Bishops. Certainly, 
we have in those named above, and others of like mind, a 
cluster of men drawn together and inspired and supported by 
one another, as well as called out and indued from above, that 
we may well turn aside to look upon and make a subject of 
study. In the group named, in this small conference, there 
were, along with the presiding Bishop, five other members of 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1887—CONTINUED 397 


the conference that afterward became Bishops. The influences 
and responsibilities brought by the placing of the publishing 
house in their midst gave added interest and significance to 
this new conference and to the years ahead. 

A good sized, leather-bound record-book for the conference 
minutes was brought into use in 1829, and thereafter the min¬ 
utes in English were recorded quite carefully and fully. It is 
probable that the earlier minutes were taken down in German 
before a record-book was secured, and that, with the change to 
English, the loose minutes were lost. 

From the places where the sessions of the conferences were 
held, some idea may be formed of the field and of the progress 
made. From 1830, the places were as follows: 1830, Philip 
Kramer’s; 1831, Lydey’s (Otterbein meeting house, Perry 
county); 1832, George Graul’s, in Fairfield county; 1833, 
Frederick Herman’s, in Fairfield county; 1834, Otterbein 
meeting house; 1835, Dresbach’s meeting house; 1836, Union 
meeting house, on Muskingum circuit; 1837, Union meeting 
house, on Pickaway circuit; 1838, Winchester, in Fairfield 
county; 1839, Dewalt Mechlin’s. 

Accessions of great value were William Hanby in 1831, 
David Edwards in 1836, and Lewis Davis in 1839. As all later 
became Bishops, an account of their lives will be given in con¬ 
nection with the history of later events. An observation or 
two, however, may be made here in regard to Lewis Davis, or 
Dr. Lewis Davis, as all who knew him in the noonday and even¬ 
ing of his career called him. It may be a little difficult for those 
that were under his teaching in Otterbein University or Union 
Biblical Seminary, as these institutions first were called, to 
think of Lewis Davis having his character and talents carefully 
examined, of his becoming a licentiate and being placed at once 
on Brush Creek circuit along with an associate, the two receiv¬ 
ing for the year $117.13, of his being placed the next year on the 
Burlington circuit with an associate, his portion of the salary 
received being $96. Yet, he always reported for duty, and 
every year new appreciation was shown for his character and 
work. In 1842, he was made pastor of Circleville station, and 
in the fall of 1845 he was made presiding elder. In 1846, the 


398 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


dream of an educational institution for the Church was haunt¬ 
ing or gilding his waking and sleeping hours. It is pathetic 
to think of the innocence that knew so little of the long waiting, 
the great struggles, and the many sacrifices before any suitable 
fulfillment came. He lamented his own want of preparation 
for the work to which he was called. Riding in a buggy with 
another preacher, he turned to him and said, “I have a good 
mind to stop preaching and go to school.” He faithfully 
carried on his studies while circuit preacher and afterward. 
Especially did he prepare himself for large labors and respon¬ 
sibilities by thoroughly mastering the problems of every new 
duty that came to him. 

We may halt a little longer to notice the significance of 
the placing of the Telescope office, or printing establishment 
as it properly is called, within the territory of the Scioto con¬ 
ference. The minutes of the General Conference of 1833 are 
entirely silent as to the founding of the printing establishment. 
From other sources, we learn that the conference appointed 
two or three persons to solicit money for a publishing fund, 
and to secure subscriptions for a religious paper. They were 
appointed, perhaps, for one year, and probably were to report 
the success of their preliminary work to the Scioto conference, 
to whose care the interests of the enterprise were entrusted. 
These trustees, however, before the meeting of the Scioto 
conference, having an opportunity to buy a printing press, 
type, and other equipment at a public sale, did so, without 
the funds in hand that were to be secured. The Scioto con¬ 
ference, meeting a month later, regularly appointed the trustees 
for the "ensuing year/' thus validating their action, and launch¬ 
ing a publishing enterprise with no capital back of it. To the 
Scioto conference largely was entrusted, in the intervals of the 
General Conferences, the control of the publishing interests, 
including the editorial as well as the financial side. A most 
perplexing question for the conference was the question as to 
the opening or closing of the columns of the Religious Telescope 
to discussion on the subject of slavery. The responsibility 
thus brought to the conference, as well as the new facilities, 
afforded, did much to stimulate and strengthen the work of the 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 399 


conference. At the time when the publishing house was lo¬ 
cated at Circleville, there was no United Brethren class or 
congregation in Circleville. Soon, though not without a con¬ 
siderable struggle, a good local congregation was established. 

Sandusky Conference. 

The beginnings of Sandusky conference will now be 
sketched briefly. By referring to the account of Muskingum 
conference, it will be seen that the territory of Scioto confer¬ 
ence, prior to the foundation of the Sandusky conference 
in 1834, virtually extended to Lake Erie. The action of the 
General Conference in 1829, in including the Sandusky work 
within the Muskingum conference, was an artificial arrange¬ 
ment, and had only a temporary force. In 1831, Scioto con¬ 
ference formed a Marion circuit, with James Ross as preacher 
in charge, who extended his work to include Sandusky. In 
1832, he was appointed to Sandusky circuit. Maumee mission 
was named, with Benjamin Moor in charge, but in reporting 
his work the following year he reported it under the name of 
Sandusky. Of those present at the formation of the Sandusky 
conference in 1834, all but one had been listed as members of 
Scioto conference. Of members of Scioto conference present 
to wish the new conference well were, besides Bishop Hiestand, 
Dewalt Mechlin, Lewis Kramer, and John Russel, the last 
named serving as presiding elder of the new conference the 
first year. The previous year, he had been presiding elder over 
the entire conference territory. About ten additional preachers 
from the Scioto conference joined the new conference within 
four or five years. Some of them were from the first recognized 
as absent members. The Scioto conference, in 1833, meeting 
less than a week before the General Conference, made no 
appointment to Sandusky circuit, evidently anticipating the 
formation of a new conference. 

The minutes of the General Conference of 1833 say nothing 
of the constituting of Sandusky conference, but their silence is 
no evidence that the General Conference did not authorize the 
formation of the conference. The basis for the conference was 
the work accomplished by Jacob Baulus about his home near 


400 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 

Lower Sandusky, and some itinerant performed by Israel 
Harrington, who was appointed by Muskingum conference in 
1830 preacher for Sandusky circuit. Through Jacob Baulus 
the work carried on in the Sandusky region after 1830 was in 
connection with the Scioto conference. Jacob Baulus was a 
delegate from the Scioto conference in the General Conference 
of 1833. The preachers of Scioto conference, under appoint¬ 
ment by the conference, had extended their activities directly 
to the north of the main part of the conference territory, even 
including the region about Lower Sandusky. A number of 
preachers had moved with their families into this new territory. 
When Miami conference was formed, in 1810, there was no 
designation of the range of its territory. But, as already said, 
it never had any claim on territory east of the Muskingum 
river. When occasion came for some indication of its bounds, 
as in naming, in 1820, the districts from which delegates to the 
General Conference should be elected, it gave its east line as 
extending north to Lake Erie. It might be said that the terri¬ 
tory of Sandusky conference included something of the terri¬ 
tory of each of the three conferences bounded on the north by 
Lake Erie. The claim that Miami conference supplied a part 
toward Sandusky conference would not rest on the fact simply 
that Miami conference had its geographical extension to Lake 
Erie, but also on the fact that Miami conference, through its 
Maumee mission, contributed a few years later, in a small 
though real way, to the membership and ministerial force of the 
Sandusky conference. 

In the Western Reserve, lying north of the forty-first 
parallel and east of the east line of Sandusky and Seneca 
counties, there were few Germans at the first. But later they 
came in considerable numbers from the older settled parts of 
the country, and also from Germany. The State of Connecticut 
offered its lands in the Western Reserve at fifty cents an acre, 
and after the War of 1812 the Congress lands west of the 
Western Reserve became the promised land to many Germans. 

We are permitted to look at the work and the workers in 
the Sandusky territory through the eyes of John Lawrence, the 
Church historian, who became a member of the conference in 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 401 


1843, and of William Mathers, who became a member in 1847, 
and forty years later published a booklet giving a brief history 
of the conference. Lawrence gives the following statement as 
to some of the pioneer preachers: “George Hiskey, a sound- 
minded, hospitable and able preacher, settled in Richland 
county near Lexington, and some substantial laymen settled in 
the same inviting region. Henry Errett and John Smith, both 
excellent German preachers settled near Galion. Philip 
Kramer located west of Findlay, in Hancock county. Israel 
Harrington, who was placed on the circuit in 1830, and who 
was a man of good judgment and influence, located on the 
Portage river, while Henry Kimberlin and John and Jacob 
Crum, all pillars in the Church and in the ministry, lifted up the 
standard near the Maumee, on Beaver creek, in Wood county. 
J. Garber, whose praise is in all the churches where he is known 
—a plain, humble, preacher—settled on Honey creek, near 
Melmore, in Seneca county. D. Strayer, C. Zook, and John 
Bowser pitched their tents west of the Maumee. 

The first session of Sandusky conference was held May 12, 
1834, at the house of Philip Bretz, on Honey Creek, in Seneca 
county, Ohio. Bishop Samuel Hiestand presided. The mem¬ 
bers of the conference present were Jacob Baulus, Jacob Baer, 
Orange Strong, William Tracy, John Crum, John Alsap, 
Benjamin Moore, Henry Errett, J. Smith, Lawrence Esterly, 
James Track, Nathan Smith, John Fry, Israel Harrington, and 
John Eckart, who joined regularly the next year, there being 
fifteen members present besides the Bishop, the names of all 
except that of Israel Harrington having before been on the roll 
of the Scioto conference. The following are the names of those 
marked in the minutes as absent members: H. Kimberling, 
Jacob Crum, John Long, Philip Kramer, George Hiskey, and 
Henry Huber. Preachers, not members, that were present, 
were John Russel, Dewalt Mechlin, and Lewis Kramer. Preach¬ 
ers joining at the first session were Jacob George, John C. Rice, 
George Newman, Abijah Winch, John Davis, Jacob Garber, 
and Stephen Lillibridge. The last three were notable acces¬ 
sions. There was no hesitance or lull in the efforts of the 
preachers of the new conference. No assignment of preachers 


402 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


is named in the minutes of the first session, though it is known 
that John Russel, of Scioto conference, who the year before 
had served the whole field of Scioto conference as presiding 
elder, served the new conference as presiding elder in its first 
year. H. G. Spayth, who had moved to Tiffin, Ohio, became a 
member of the conference at its second session. Other new 
names on the roll in 1835 were those of Jeremiah Brown and 
Benjamin Kauffman, both from Scioto conference. 

At the third session, Michael Long, Christian Zug, Daniel 
Strayer, and Alfred Sprachlin were received. In 1841, John 
Bright, noted for his missionary zeal and achievements, was 
received. 

We turn to notice a new field opened up for the Sandusky 
conference through the missionary labors of Henry Kumler, Jr., 
who was elected Bishop in 1841, and assigned to the Miami, 
Sandusky, Wabash, and Indiana conferences. He writes: 
“This, however, occupied but little of my time. Then I de¬ 
voted the first interval between annual conferences as a mis¬ 
sionary in the wilds of the Maumee country.” He gives ac¬ 
counts of his floundering in the swamps, and lone visits to the 
rude cabins of the settlers. He had been led to undertake to 
establish a mission by the invitation of David Landis, a layman 
that moved from near Dayton to Defiance county, Ohio, on the 
Maumee. But the work soon extended over several of the 
northeastern counties of Indiana, and two other regular preach¬ 
ers and four local preachers soon were enlisted in the work. A 
gracious revival extended far and wide. At the session of 
Sandusky conference in 1842, Bishop Kumler, Jr., presented 
four of his preachers for membership. They were “unani¬ 
mously received.” Thus, several new fields in Indiana were 
opened up, among them St. Joseph mission, to be distinguished 
from the St. Joseph mission of western Michigan. Eel River 
mission became Fort Wayne circuit. 

Just a few personal notes before turning from Sandusky 
conference. The booklet history above referred to includes the 
following in regard to Stephen Lillibridge: 

Mr. Lilliebridge did more perhaps than any other man of 
his day to build up the cause of Christ in the Sandusky confer- 


PERIOD FROM 1817 TO 1837—CONTINUED 403 


ence. He was born January 31, 1815, and in his eighteenth 
year experienced the pardon of his sins and united with the 
Church. In a very short time, he was moved to call sinners 
to repentance, and for eight years he served the church faith¬ 
fully as an itinerant. Few can realize, at this time, the pri¬ 
vations and hardships of a pioneer missionary in this sparsely 
settled country, without bridges and but few roads, sometimes 
on horseback, and not infrequently afoot. “To go where the 
brethren as yet had no name nor home, and where Christ was 
seldom preached by any minister, and still less known, was his 
peculiar call, as it was his pleasure and his delight.” During 
the eight years of his itinerancy, his annual pay was less than 
one hundred dollars, with but one single exception. He 
suffered much from the want of suitable clothing during the 
winter season, which was one of the causes of his untimely 
death. From his diary, it appears that during his brief career 
he preached 1930 sermons. After forming many new societies, 
and winning hundreds to Christ, at the early age of twenty- 
eight, on the twenty-fifth of May, 1843, he died, near Findlay, 
Ohio. 

The same history also says with reference to Michael 
Long: “Brother M. Long has travelled longer, suffered more 
privations in the conference than any other man, living or 
dead, and has succeeded in bringing thousands into the Church. 
For fifty-one years, he has taken work from the conference, 
with the exception of one or two years. He never has missed 
a single session. In 1886, he took a location, but continued to 
preach as he was able. November 17, 1891, he passed from 
labor to reward.” Almost the same description would suit 
the long career of John Davis. Of John Bright more will be 
said hereafter. 

Through a number of sessions, the conference was greatly 
helped and strengthened by the accession of men of sterling 
character and staying qualities. 




CHAPTER IX 


THE GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1837 AND 1841 

General Conference of 1837—Constitution of 1837—General Conference 
of 1841—The Newly Elected Bishops—Beginnings of Allegheny 
Conference—The Itinerant Preacher. 

General Conference of 1837. 



IXTEEN delegates, representing eight annual confer¬ 


ences, together with Bishops Henry Kumler, Sr., and 


Samuel Hiestand, constituted the General Conference 


meeting May 9, 1837, at Germantown, Ohio. Hither¬ 
to, the several districts defined by the annual conferences had 
each been represented by two delegates. The following is the 
list of delegates, together with the names of the conferences 
represented: Pennsylvania, Jacob Erb, Jacob Winters; Vir¬ 
ginia, Jacob Rhinehart, J. J. Glossbrenner; Muskingum, Adam 
Hetzler, David Weimer; Sandusky, John Dorcas, George 
Hiskey; Scioto, John Coons, William Hanby; Miami, John 
Fetterhoff, William Stubbs; Indiana, F. Whitcom, John Lopp; 
Wabash, F. Kenoyer, William Davis. William R. Rhinehart, 
the editor of the Religious Telescope, was made secretary. 
During the preceding four years, there had been no contro¬ 
versies or divergent movements or tendencies that would claim 
the attention of the General Conference. Bishop Hiestand 
delivered the opening sermon, in which he rehearsed somewhat 
the work of the preceding quadrennium. 

Henry Kumler, Sr., and Samuel Hiestand were reelected 
Bishops, and Jacob Erb was elected for his first term. William 
R. Rhinehart was reelected editor of the Religious Telescope, 
and William Hanby was elected book agent and treasurer for 
the Printing Establishment. John Russel, George Dresbach, 
and Jonathan Dresbach were elected trustees of the Printing 
Establishment. A constitution for the management of the 
Printing Establishment was adopted, and other measures 
looking to the progress and permanent upbuilding of the 
Church were adopted. 


405 


406 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Constitution of 1837. 

The subject that received the greatest attention of the 
conference, a subject entirely unannounced beforehand, was 
the adoption of a constitution for the Church. It is said that 
constitution-making began with the peopling of the New World. 
The Pilgrim Fathers adopted their sacred covenant or charter 
on shipboard before breasting the toils and difficulties of their 
new home. Political constitutions, constitutions for minor 
organizations, and why not constitutions for the churches! 
At least, so thought William Hanby and William R. Rhinehart, 
who was the secretary, though not a member of the conference. 
On motion of William Hanby, it was resolved that a constitu¬ 
tion for the better regulation of the Church be adopted. The 
constitution presented by Mr. Rhinehart, amended as desired, 
was adopted by the unanimous voice of the conference. The 
conference felt that, in adopting section two of article four of 
the constitution, which declared that no subsequent General 
Conference could amend the constitution without a two-thirds 
vote of the conference, it had exceeded its authority; so, in a 
circular appended to the constitution, the following language 
was used: “We are well aware that we have transcended the 
bounds given us by our Discipline, which [transcending of 
bounds] will be found in the constitution, article four, section 
two, declaring that the said constitution can neither be altered 
nor amended without a majority of two-thirds of a General 
Conference. The object of this circular is (feeling that the 
government of the Church is not as firm as it ought to be) to 
give notice to our Church throughout the Union that we intend 
to present a memorial to the next General Conference, praying 
them to ratify the constitution now adopted according to 
[making it binding under] article four, section two.” 

Beyond the securing of definiteness, fixed character, and 
harmony of practice, the constitution presented little that was 
specially significant. Pro rata representation of the annual 
conferences in the General Conference, however, was definitely 
provided for. The only radical departure was that given in 
the article on amendments, and that was referred to the next 
General Conference. 


GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1837 AND 1841 407 


The constitution, though not binding under the final 
article, was yet designed to be binding from the time of its 
adoption. The constitution began, "We, as members [not we 
the members] of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ;” 
ordain, and so forth. Thus the constitution did not purport 
to come from the membership. The members of the confer¬ 
ence, according to previous resolution, came forward on the 
next morning after the adoption of the constitution, and 
solemnly appended their names, which w r ould not have been 
done in the case of a proposed constitution. Then, by resolu¬ 
tion, the number of delegates from the different annual confer¬ 
ences to the next General Conference was fixed in a pro rata 
way in harmony with the constitution. Further, in the 
printed Discipline, edited by William R. Rhinehart and 
William Hanby, the two persons that were foremost in the 
adoption of the constitution, at the place where the section had 
stood in previous Disciplines, on the members constituting the 
General Conference, the note was thrown in, "See constitu¬ 
tion/' just as was the case after the adoption of the constitution 
of 1841, and has continued down to the present time. It 
stands also as a fact that the provisions of the constitution, in 
whatever form they applied in the interval before the General 
Conference of 1841, w r ere as consistently adhered to as, in the 
circumstances of the case, could at all have been expected. 
There is not wanting, however, decisive testimony as to the 
intention of the conference. Rev. William Hanby, a member 
of the conference and one of the editors of the Discipline, in 
1839, while serving as editor of the Religious Telescope, wrote 
the following, the extract being a part of a reply to a question 
of Rev. William R. Coursey: "Here we must confess that we 
do not understand Brother Coursey, unless he is of the opinion 
that the present constitution is void and of no effect. If so, 
we think he is mistaken. It was not, by any means, considered 
that the constitution would be null and void for four years, 
and that therefore a petition should be offered to the next 
General Conference, praying for the enactment of a certain 
specification, as set forth in the circular of the Discipline. 
General Conference did by no means doubt their right to 


408 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


gather up the detached principles of government as contained 
in the Discipline and throw them together in the form of a 
constitution, and even make amendments to them, but they 
did doubt the right of declaring that that constitution should 
be neither altered nor amended without a majority of two- 
thirds of a General Conference, and that was, we think, the 
only object of the circular, and that is the only specification 
set forth in the circular. Presuming, then, that the constitu¬ 
tion is equally valid with other parts of the Discipline, we refer 
Brother Coursey to the second article in the constitution as 
exhibiting a satisfactory manner of procedure.” 

Some articles of the constitution that have more than a 
passing interest are the following: 

We, as members of the United Brethren in Christ, in order 
to retain a perfect union, accomplish the ends of justice and 
equity, insure ecclesiastical as well as domestic tranquillity, 
provide for the common interest of the Church, promote the, 
general welfare of society, and to secure the blessings of the 
gospel to ourselves, our posterity, and our fellow-men in gen¬ 
eral, do ordain and establish the following constitution, for the 
Church aforesaid: 

******** 

The number of delegates from each conference district 
shall not exceed one for every five hundred members. But, 
should it so happen that a conference would be formed in a 
territory not having five hundred members within its district, 
that conference shall nevertheless have one delegate to repre¬ 
sent its members in General Conference. 

******** 

No annual conference shall have the exclusive right to 
form or admit any new conference within the bounds of society 
without the consent of the General Conference. 

******** 

Resolutions. 

Inasmuch as it is the indefeasible right of every man to 
think and act for himself in matters of faith and morality, this 
right not only being granted by the charter of his creation, but 
also by the Discipline adopted for the better government of 
the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, be it resolved, 
therefore, 

1. That no rule be adopted by General Conference so as 
to infringe upon the rights of any, as it relates to the mode and 


GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1837 AND 1841 409 


manner of baptism, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or the 
washing of feet, etc. 

2. Resolved, No rule or ordinance shall be passed in 
General Conference so as to deprive the local preachers of their 
eligibility of election as delegates to the same; nor yet to de¬ 
prive them of their legal vote in the annual conference to which 
they severally belong. 

3. Resolved, That the foregoing resolutions shall neither 
be altered or repealed without the unanimous consent of the 
whole conference. 

It will be seen that the “resolutions,” which might be 
called “reservations,” were given greater security against 
amendment than belonged to the constitution proper, and yet 
even here the General Conference did not go beyond the action 
of the previous General Conference, which placed in the Disci¬ 
pline the following decoration in regard to the power of the 
General Conference: “Yet nothing shall be done by the said 
conference which would in any wise affect or change the articles 
of faith, neither the spirit nor meaning of the rules or Discipline 
as they now stand.” 

General Conference of 1841. 

The eighth General Conference met May 10, 1841, at 
Dresbach's church, on the line between Pickaway and Fairfield 
counties, Ohio. Bishops H. Kumler, Sr., and Jacob Erb were 
in attendance, Bishop Hiestand having died in the second year 
of his term. While no additional annual conferences were 
constituted at the preceding General Conference, Allegheny 
conference was formed by a division of the Pennsylvania con¬ 
ference in 1838 and met in its first separate session in 1839. 
The following is the list of delegates and of the conferences 
represented: Pennsylvania, J. Russel, Jacob Roop; Virginia, 
J. J. Glossbrenner, W. R. Coursey; Muskingum, A. Biddle, 
James McGaw; Sandusky, H. G. Spayth, G. Hiskey; Alle¬ 
gheny, J. Ritter, G. Miller; Scioto, William Hastings, John 
Coons, J. Montgomery, E. Vandemark; Miami, Henry Kum¬ 
ler, Jr., F. Whitcom; Indiana, H. Bonebrake, Joseph A. Ball, 
J. G. Eckels; Wabash, Josiah Davis, William Davis. 


410 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Constitution of 1841. 

Early in the session, the subject of a constitution was 
brought up. About a half dozen short articles on the subject 
appeared in the Religious Telescope in the years 1840 and 1841, 
being almost entirely confined to the desirability of a constitu¬ 
tion, and bearing almost exclusively upon the proposed ratifica¬ 
tion of the constitution of 1837. In a published article, 
Joshua Montgomery set forth the spirit of a considerable 
number of ministers in the Church. He wrote, “Let us have a 
constitution now while our Church, laity and ministers, are 
disposed to be governed by the true spirit of Christ and his 
word, and then, should a part or all of us depart from this 
spirit, still no rule in discipline could be enacted contrary to 
the constitution until that constitution is altered.” H. G. 
Spayth and William R. Coursey wrote articles opposing a 
constitution from considerations drawn from the history of 
the Church. According to their view, the Bible and the 
providence of God had given the Church being, and guided it 
thus far, and would be sufficient security for the future. This 
is the summary of the discussion prior to the General Con¬ 
ference. 

In the resolutions and discussions on the subject of a 
constitution, on the General Conference floor, little reference 
was made to the instrument of 1837, though the reason is not 
altogether clear. A few considerations may explain the matter 
somewhat. In the first place, a very limited number had 
anything to do with the earlier instrument. Again, the cir¬ 
cular often referred to was so involved and unintelligible in its 
wording as to seem to have reference to the body of the con¬ 
stitution itself, rather than exclusively to the article on amend¬ 
ments. Some saw in the confused state into which things had 
come an opportunity for a constitution of a different character. 
Thus, between those that desired no constitution and those 
that desired a constitution embracing different features, 
the constitution of 1837 went to the ground. William R. 
Rhinehart, who stood so closely identified with the constitution 
of 1837 had lost much of his influence, having been constrained 
to resign his position as editor of the Religious Telescope in 


GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1837 AND 1841 411 


the middle of his term. Some had objected to the constitution 
of 1837 as stilted and grandiose in character. 

The discussion began on the motion “that a constitution 
for the better government of the Church be adopted.” J. Mont¬ 
gomery, speaking in favor of a constitution, said that “the 
object of a constitution is to guard against apostasy; to sustain 
a balance of power between the ministry and the laity; that it 
is designed to establish points of polity which should stand 
unalterable.” H. G. Spayth, J. McGaw, A. Biddle, J. J. Gloss- 
brenner, and others, from the customary arguments, stood 
opposed to a constitution. When the vote was taken, fifteen 
voted in the affirmative and seven in the negative, the Bishop 
not in the chair casting his vote also. It was believed by the 
minority that what had been sufficient in the past would 
suffice for the future, and that there was peril in anything that 
would interfere with flexibility and an unfettered choice of 
methods in the affairs of the Church, amidst the contingencies 
that the future might reveal. But when they were outvoted 
not one of them was sullen or rebellious. A committee of nine, 
one from each conference, was appointed “to draft a con¬ 
stitution.” The committee consisted of J. Russel, J. J. Gloss- 
brenner, George Miller, A. Biddle, H. G. Spayth, J. Mont¬ 
gomery, William Davis, H. Bonebrake, and H. Kumler, Jr. 
When in 1849, J. J. Glossbrenner was asked why, if he was 
opposed to a constitution, he served on the committee to draft 
one, his answer was, “ If there was to be a constitution I wanted 
to help to make it as good as possible.” So perhaps thought the 
others; for a number of the delegates that were opposed to a 
constitution served on the committee. The constitution, as 
drawn up and finally adopted, left out the pro rata principle 
of the constitution of 1837, included among new items prohibi¬ 
tion of connection with secret combinations and slavery, and 
in the last article made changes impossible “unless by request 
of two-thirds of the whole society.” The statement that the 
form drawn up in 1837 was now adopted “after some slight 
amendments,” is as unhistoric as the statement that the form 
of 1837 was a kind of “conventional constitution,” which the 
conference of 1841 was “to adopt, amend, or reject.” This 


412 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


theory was first hastily announced on the floor of the General 
Conference of 1849, when three delegates assailed the validity 
of the constitution. As all criticism soon ceased, this theory 
unchallenged was generally embraced, even receiving the sanc¬ 
tion of those that previously had announced a different view. 
The committee found it convenient to use some parts of the 
disregarded constitution. Some elements were engrafted from 
the previous discipline. Instead of the forbidding of connec¬ 
tion with Freemasonry, as contained in a section of the Discip¬ 
line, a section of the constitution was made to declare, "There 
shall be no connection with secret combinations.” The most 
striking feature of the constitution of 1841, that which gave 
to all of the others their importance, was the article in regard to 
amendments. 

What was meant by the language that no alteration should 
be made in the constitution "unless by request of two-thirds 
of the whole society” could not have been entirely clear at the 
time. As far as the Church had any custom for the expression 
of the will of the laity, it was through the selection of the 
ministerial delegates that should represent them in the General 
Conference. The sole expression of the people in the constitu¬ 
tion of 1841 was of this character. There were no petitions in 
advance, and there was no submission to vote afterward. We 
readily may conceive that, in view of the absence of precedent 
and experience in obtaining expressions from the laity, it 
would be difficult to give a statement of the mode by which a 
suitable expression could be reached. The General Conference 
of 1833 had forbidden the enrolling of members where there 
was opposition. The General Conference of 1837 made the 
apportionment of delegates to be elected to the next General 
Conference because, as one of the delegates expressed it, "Some 
of the annual conferences had conscientious scruples about 
numbering their Israel.” It was not till 1857 that the Church 
presumed to give any statistics relating to the entire member¬ 
ship. 

If the word "request” did not mean an expression from 
the laity through their ministerial delegates, it evidently is to 
be taken in the sense of vote. It was at once translated into 


GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1837 AND 1841 413 


the German word Stimmenzahl , which carries that meaning. 
The expression “whole society” was sometimes used to dis¬ 
tinguish the membership in general from the ministry or the 
General Conference. The constitution of 1837 gave the power 
of making changes to the General Conference composed of 
ministerial delegates; the constitution of 1841 gave the power 
of making changes to the membership throughout the Church. 
The meaning would therefore be a two-thirds vote in the usual 
interpretation of the word. Probably a definite meaning, such 
as was required later, was not in the minds of the framers of 
the article. 

Whatever might be developed later, there was nothing then 
to show that the provisions of the constitution were not well 
advised. The party that did not believe that the future could 
be trusted, and that a formal provision might prevent apos¬ 
tasy, and the party that believed the Bible and the eternal 
Spirit were the guide and pledge of the church of Christ, went 
on with their work in harmony. Happy would it have been 
if the absence of mere technicality and obstinate literalness 
had been as conspicuous in the later interpretation of the 
constitution as it was in regard to the method of adoption. 

At the session of the General Conference of 1841, it was 
ordered that the salary of a married preacher be two hundred 
dollars, instead of one hundred and sixty, and that of a single 
preacher be one hundred dollars, instead of eighty. The con¬ 
ference also extended the prohibition against distilling and 
vending ardent spirits so as to include lay members as well as 
preachers. 

The conference reelected Henry Kumler Sr. and Jacob 
Erb, Bishops, and also elected H. Kumler, Jr. and John Coons 
to the office of Bishop. William Hanby was elected editor of 
the Religious Telescope. He had served as editor of this 
publication since 1839, William R. Rhinehart having resigned. 
George Dresbach, Jonathan Dresbach, and William Leist were 
elected trustees of the Printing Establishment. The General 
Conference ordered the columns of the Religious Telescope 
closed against the discussion of slavery. The Sandusky and 
Scioto conferences had asked for this restriction. It was 


414 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


thought by some that, if abolition were urged, State and 
National authorities would interfere with the circulation of the 
paper. Others feared that, in the precarious financial condition 
of the publishing house, the paper, if anti-slavery agitation 
should be kept up, could not be issued at all. Many, however, 
resented the restriction, and four years later the restriction was 
lifted. In 1840, John Russel had begun the publication of a 
German paper at Baltimore, Maryland, under the name of 
“Die Geschaeftige Martha” (Busy Martha). The General 
Conference now took over the publication of the paper, and 
made Jacob Erb editor and financial manager. In June, 1842, 
the paper was discontinued on account of insufficient patronage, 
but it was reestablished later. 

Newly Elected Bishops. 

Jacob Erb, who was one of the new Bishops elected in 
1837, may be said to have succeeded Bishop William Brown. 
Bishop Brown seems not to have expected to continue longer 
in the Bishop's office, as he was not present at the General 
Conference in 1837. He was a noble Christian man, and 
excelled as a preacher, but seemed not inclined to the various 
and changing work of a Bishop. The following year, he took 
up his residence in Benton county, Indiana. 

Bishop Erb was well adapted to all of the occasions, old 
and new, that he came to face in the long period of his ministry. 
He was born May 25, 1804, near Manheim, Lancaster county, 
Pennsylvania, and died at Shiremanstown, Cumberland county, 
Pennsylvania, April 29, 1883. His parents and grandparents 
were connected with the United Brethren Church, though the 
earlier connection of the family was with the Mennonites. 
When Jacob was six years old, his parents moved to Cumber¬ 
land county, opposite Harrisburg. He was converted at an 
early age, and in 1823 became a member of the Old or Eastern 
conference, and was appointed at once to Lancaster circuit, 
which included all of the territory east of the Susquehanna. 
It extended from Harrisburg to Lancaster and out to Turkey 
Hill; thence by Columbia to Marietta, May town, Middletown, 
and Highspire; thence to Hummelstown, Union Water Works, 


GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1837 AND 1841 415 


Annville, Lebanon, Schaefferstown, Ephrata, Manheim, and 
Lititz. As if the thirty appointments belonging to the circuit 
were not enough, the number was increased to forty. His 
salary for the year was $47.58. Besides performing the work 
of an itinerant in Pennsylvania, he labored under appointment 
in New York and Canada. For seven years he was presiding 
elder, seven years pastor of the Otterbein church in Baltimore, 
and three years pastor in York, Pennsylvania. For a short 
time, beginning with 1841, he was editor of the German paper, 
the Busy Martha. East of the Susquehanna, there was great 
opposition to classing and organization. Jacob Erb, through 
his tact and perseverance, succeeded largely in breaking down 
the opposition by introducing classing in the Sherk community 
in Lebanon county in 1827. His influence outside the Church 
is seen in his baptizing, in 1830, John Winebrenner, the founder 
of the Church of God. 

Jacob Erb, on the expiration of his first term as Bishop, 
was reelected in 1841 for a second term, and then, after four 
years, was elected for a third term. As a Bishop, through his 
earnestness, devotion to the Church, and ability to suit himself 
to varying conditions, he filled a large and useful place. He 
was a good preacher, especially in the German, and had a 
large hold on the sympathy and confidence of the Church. 
After he ceased to be Bishop, he served his conference and the 
Church in general in different capacities. He was present at 
sixty successive sessions of the Pennsylvania conference. The 
last meeting of a general church character that he was per¬ 
mitted to attend was the session of the General Conference at 
Westfield, Illinois, in 1877. 

Henry Kumler, Jr., in his career, brings together such a 
multiplicity and divergence of elements as to defy any effort 
to supply a satisfactory sketch. For his life, there is enough 
material for a book. For many years he kept a minute diary, 
and for his whole life there remains an autobiography in manu¬ 
script. Besides, he wrote extensively for the Church periodi¬ 
cals. He always took things, himself included, very seriously. 
His course did not run smooth. He described himself as one 
bom out of due season. He was as tender-hearted as a child, 


416 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


and as inexorable as if he knew no sympathy. His introspec¬ 
tion would have made him a mystic if it had not been for the 
outer knocks that made him aware of a stubborn environment. 

Henry Kumler, Jr., son of the elder Bishop Henry Kumler, 
was born January 9, 1801, in Lancaster county, Pennsylvania. 
Subsequently, the family home came to be three and one-half 
miles from Greencastle, Franklin county, Pennsylvania. He 
was converted when about eleven years of age, and became a 
class leader at fourteen. The family moved to Butler county, 
Ohio, in 1819, and in the following year he received a license to 
preach from the Miami conference. In the same year, he 
married a daughter of Bishop Andrew Zeller. For sixteen 
years he did not give himself entirely to the work of the minis¬ 
try. Bishop Zeller had the good old idea that a preacher's 
first duty was to provide for his family, meanwhile preaching 
without pay as he might have opportunities, and he took pains 
to impress this idea on the mind of his young son-in-law. 
Henry Kumler did everything that a man could do trying to 
get ahead so that he could give himself wholly to the work of 
preaching; cleared land, built mills, opened a tan yard, and 
undertook other things, but without attaining the end sought. 
In all this time, he was preaching almost every Sunday, and 
often through the week, sometimes traveling long distances 
and spending considerable time away from home. He had no 
time for preparation. His own soul was lean, and his efforts, 
for the most part were barren of visible results. He was 
awakened abruptly by a reproach or remonstrance of one of his 
workmen. He relieved himself as completely as possible of 
all secular burdens, and gave himself to the regular work of 
the ministry as an itinerant preacher, and then as a presiding 
elder. He did not feel over-exalted when he was elected 
Bishop in 1841. His statement was, “1 was elected Bishop, 
much with the view of aiding my father who was becoming in¬ 
firm and bowing under the weight of many years." Yet his 
own sterling qualities made him the man for the hour in ad¬ 
vancing and maintaining the work and policies of the Church, 
even though some things that he stood for were modified or 
discarded in later years. He believed strongly in infant bap- 



EDITORS OF THE RELIGIOUS TELESCOPE 

SHOP WILLIAM HANBY, BISHOP DAVID EDWARDS, JOHN LAWRENCE, 
DANIEL BERGER, BISHOP J. W. HOTT, BISHOP MILTON WRIGHT 



























I. L. KEPHART 


J. M. PHILLIPPI 






























GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1837 AND 1841 417 


tism, held to the doctrine of total depravity, and stoutly 
opposed slavery, extravagance in dress, worldly amusements, 
secret societies, and the use of mere human contrivances for 
the advancement of the gospel. His missionary labors on the 
Maumee, in Nebraska and in Missouri, and then his later work 
in the German conference, certainly rounded out a large work 
in the service of the Church and the kingdom of Christ. He 
served as German Bishop from 1861 to 1865. In 1854, he 
served as agent of the Publishing House, under the employment 
of the trustees. He believed in education, but in connection 
with it he saw so many frailties and liabilities that he came to 
doubt as to much of its proclaimed value, especially in connec¬ 
tion with the ministry. On his own part, he was a close ob¬ 
server and a close reader of books, especially a diligent student 
of the Bible. He died in Dayton, Ohio, August 19, 1882. 
During the most of his life, the family home was at Lewisburg, 
Preble county, Ohio. In the cemetery at this place, his body 
lies buried, not far from that of Bishop Joseph Hoffman. 

John Coons, who was elected Bishop in 1841, filled first a 
large place in the Scioto conference. In his term as Bishop 
from 1841 to 1845, in his work and leadership, he measured up 
well to the expectations and needs of the Church. Following 
his term as Bishop, he joined the Miami conference in 1846, 
on transfer from the Scioto conference. 

Mr. Coons was born in Martinsburg, Virginia, October 25, 
1797. When he was about ten years of age, his father's family 
moved to Ross county, Ohio. He was converted when twenty- 
four years of age. He became a member of Miami conference 
in 1822 and, on the formation of the Scioto conference in 1825, 
cast his lot with that conference. He was a preacher of good 
ability, but was distinguished especially for his good judgment 
and responsible character. Beginning with 1829, he was sent 
four times to the General Conference from the Scioto confer¬ 
ence, and in 1853 was a delegate from the Miami conference. 
In the Miami conference, he continued to labor in the ministry 
until near the time of his death, which occurred August 7,1869. 
His body rests in the cemetery at Germantown, Ohio. 


418 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Allegheny Conference. 

The founding of the Church within the present territory 
of Allegheny conference already has received attention. It is 
not necessary to go over again the work of the itinerant preach¬ 
ers on the eastern slope of the Alleghenies or in the western 
counties of Pennsylvania. The eastern part of the territory 
continued to be cultivated by the Pennsylvania conference, and 
the western part of the State likewise, up to 1817, and again 
after 1833. In 1838, it was deemed expedient to divide the 
territory and the ministry of Pennsylvania conference. The 
long distances to be traveled to the annual sessions of the 
conference furnished one of the reasons for the separation. 
Another reason was the difficulty in finding a place where the 
conference could be entertained. In 1837, there was no place 
willing to entertain the conference the following year. So, 
Jacob Erb undertook to entertain the conference at Wormleys- 
burg at his own expense. He rented a building, himself 
boarded forty preachers, paid his sisters for boarding more, 
found places for others, and supplied hay and oats for the 
horses. Ninety-eight preachers and some forty laymen were 
present at this conference. It was at this session that the 
division of the conference territory was decided on. The 
General Conference from 1815 had reserved the authority to 
determine the annual conference districts and had included 
the reservation in the Constitution at its session in 1837. The 
General Conference of 1837 adopted no measures looking 
toward a separation, but, as there was no opposition, those 
most concerned took it upon themselves to divide the territory. 
In a like situation politicians might have said, “What is the 
Constitution among friends!” The conference left it to the 
preachers to decide for themselves to which side they would 
belong. For the most part, their place of residence was the 
deciding factor. With the territory divided, more intensive 
and effective cultivation was made possible. The new confer¬ 
ence, under the name of Allegheny Conference, secured fully 
one-half of the occupied territory, and about one-third of the 
preachers. 


GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1837 AND 1841 419 


The Allegheny conference met in its first session, March 25, 
1839, at Mount Pleasant, Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania. 
The preachers present were Harmonious Ow, John R. Sitman, 
Joseph Zumbro, George Miller, John Rathfon, John Wallace, 
A. Harnden, William Beighel, Daniel Worman, Jacob Ritter, 
Isaac Coombs, M. Houser, Henry Metzger, W. B. Lewis. 
Jacob Erb presided as Bishop. The members noted as absent 
were A. Hamer, D. Hamer, J. P. Fouts, William Cramer, D. 
Fleck, M. Cline, John Rider, Peter Swartz, R. Cattough, 
J. Alway, Henry Kephart, J. Barger, C. Grumling, D. Runk, 
Moses Lawson. Those received at the first session were M. G. 
Miller, George Wagoner, Sr., Abraham Zumbro, and J. L. 
Baker. A number of the ministers had been connected prom¬ 
inently with the parent conference, and some of them continued 
long to serve in the new conference. 

Jacob Ritter joined the Pennsylvania conference in 1833. 
His first charge was Huntingdon circuit, which was about three 
hundred miles in circumference. On this circuit, there was 
one small church house at Bellefonte. Of organized classes, it 
might be said there were none. Thus, the results of years of 
earnest evangelism were not gathered and held. Mr. Ritter 
served twenty-four years in the regular ministry, in which 
time he published a volume of sermon sketches known as 
“ Ritter's Sketches,” which had a wide circulation. His last 
years were given to the practice of medicine. He lived to be 
the last surviving charter member of Allegheny conference. 
He died February 4, 1901. 

J. R. Sitman, more than any other, was the father of the 
Allegheny conference. He was the first presiding elder, and 
served many years in that capacity. He became a member of 
Pennsylvania conference in 1832, and continued in the active 
ministry until disabled for work, about four years before his 
death, which occurred April 24, 1869. 

John Rider had been active and useful, some of the time 
as presiding elder, in the part of Pennsylvania conference 
apportioned to Allegheny conference. He received license to 
preach in 1822. "He labored long and arduously in the very 
front ranks of Zion's watchmen.” He died April 24, 1849. 


420 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


George Miller came to have more prominence than any 
other one of the charter members. He entered the itinerancy 
in York county, in 1833, joining the Pennsylvania conference 
the following year. For two years prior to the formation of 
Allegheny conference, he traveled Huntingdon circuit. After 
serving in Allegheny conference as circuit preacher and pre¬ 
siding elder, he served as stationed preacher at Chambersburg 
and Hershey’s station, then as presiding elder in Pennsylvania 
conference, and then three years as pastor of Otterbein’s con¬ 
gregation in Baltimore. Then he removed to Iowa, where he 
served as pastor and presiding elder. He died January 8,1860. 

William Beighel and John Wallace were foremost leaders 
in the earliest years of the conference. The former died 
August 10, 1883, and the latter died August 31, 1880 Henry 
Kephart, whose three sons performed so large a part in the 
later history of the Church, became a member of the Pennsyl¬ 
vania conference in 1834. He died in Iowa, May 5, 1886. 
The one whose active service connected the earlier with the 
later years was J. L. Baker, who was received at the first 
session of Allegheny conference in 1839, and died October 2, 
1900, in the ninety-second year of his age. He served thirty- 
three years as pastor and three years as presiding elder. He 
was greatly loved and honored. 

In 1840, the Allegheny conference met in the Antis meeting 
house in Blair county, Pennsylvania. A home missionary 
society was organized at this session. The third session was 
held at Beliefonte in 1841. The following year, J. B. Resler, 
who did so much in the years that followed in shaping and for¬ 
warding the work of the conference, was received as a member. 
In 1843, I. Potter, long a leading member of the conference, 
was received. In 1844, W. S. H. Keys, one of the most talented 
and eloquent preachers in the entire breadth of the Church, 
became a member of the conference. He was transferred 
from the conference in 1862, and later became lost to the 
Church. 

These were the beginnings of the conference that now has 
the largest lay membership in the Church. 


GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1837 AND 1841 421 


The Itinerant Preacher. 

At this point, midway in tracing the history of the Church, 
and following our last connected notice of annual conferences, 
for the present, may we not seek to know the outstanding mark 
in the early history of the Church? On the human side, un¬ 
doubtedly it was the itinerant preacher. The age was a 
preacher's age—an age for making preachers, for their clarion 
message and self-sacrificing devotion. The simple life of the 
people, and their struggle to make new homes for themselves 
in the wilderness, supplied virgin conditions for the work of the 
preacher. The pioneer preachers knew their Bible, and knew 
likewise their heads of theology. They came mostly from the 
plow or the shop, though a number had been teachers, and 
some had a good degree of academic training. A large propor¬ 
tion of the total number became trained in their work, or along 
with their work, so that they became strong preachers and 
capable leaders. Starting with a stirring religious experience 
and a sense of a divine call, their native powers were developed 
and called into action. There was time for reading by the 
blaze of the pine knot at home, and for thought on the long 
horse-back journeys. In reference to some of these preachers 
of a generation or two ago, the Bible language has often been 
used, “ There were giants in the earth in those days." Their 
prayer for themselves and their people was that they might 
be like giants refreshed with new wine. While we admire the 
early preachers, we are not to forget that in somewhat different 
ways the preachers of today may be as faithful to the conditions 
and opportunities of their time as their predecessors were to 
the requirements of their time. A word is in place with refer¬ 
ence to the “unknown preacher" who must represent the great 
number of the preachers of the past. November 11, 1921, two 
years after the Great War, our national government brought 
from an unmarked grave in France the body of an American 
soldier and, with an interest nation wide, erected in the home 
land a monument to the “unknown soldier." In a real, though 
different way, would the Church of today seek to honor the 
pioneer workers whose names and deeds cannot be recorded 
on the scrolls of history. 









CHAPTER X. 

PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


General Conference of 1845—Licensing of Women to Preach—Education— 
Evangelism—A New Board of Bishops—Russel, Glossbrenner, Hanby— 
General Conference of 1849—Revision and Administration—David Ed¬ 
wards Bishop—General Conference of 1853—Missionary Work—Infant 
Baptism—Depravity—Removal of the “Telescope Office”—Lewis 
Davis, Bishop—General Conference of 1857—Bishops’ Address— 
Depravity Question Settled—Secret Societies—General Confer¬ 
ence of 1861—Old Questions Brought Forward—Daniel 
Shuck and Jacob Markwood Bishops—General Conference 
of 1865—Effects of the War—Sunday-school Depart¬ 
ment—Jonathan Weaver, Bishop 


General Conference of 1845. 

r HE ninth General Conference was held at Circleville, 
Ohio, beginning May 10, 1845. At this time, Circle¬ 
ville was the Jerusalem of the Church. Here was the 
printing establishment. It was the center for Scioto 
conference, one of the most influential conferences in the 
Church, having control of the publishing establishment in 
the intervals of the General Conference. Bishops Henry 
Kumler, Sr., Henry Kumler, Jr., and John Coons were present, 
Bishop Erb being unavoidably prevented from attending. 
The conferences were represented as follows: Virginia, J. J. 
Glossbrenner, J. Markwood, and J. Bach tel; Pennsylvania, 
J. Russel; Allegheny, J. R. Sitman and John Rider; Muskingum, 
A. Biddle, J. McGaw, and W. W. Simpkins; Wabash, John 
Hoobler, Josiah Davis, and John Denham; Scioto, J. Mont¬ 
gomery, E. Vandemark, and M. Ambrose; Sandusky, H. G. 
Spayth, George Hiskey, and J. Brown; Miami, George Bone- 
brake, John Crider, and F. Whitcom; Indiana, H. Bonebrake, 
and J. A. Ball The conference decided adversely to the claim 
of Joseph Hoffman to a seat in the conference, he having 
claimed a place on the ground that he had been ordained a 
Bishop. The delegates were men of unusual strength of con¬ 
viction and purpose. On the question of the right of the 

423 


424 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


conference to modify verbally the Confession of Faith, the 
vote stood against such right, fifteen, and for such right, eight. 
A course of study, ranging from books directly on the Bible 
to books on theology, general history, and moral and intellec¬ 
tual science, was recommended for candidates for the ministry. 
That candidates should study diligently books on the doctrine, 
biography, geography, chronology and history of the Bible 
was made a requirement. The report embodying these fea¬ 
tures was adopted by twelve votes for and eleven against. 
On striking out the word “depravity” in naming the doctrines 
of the Church, the vote stood twenty against and six for. A 
motion that the article on ardent spirits should remain as it 
was, simply forbidding the manufacture and sale of the same, 
instead of including also a prohibition of their use as a beverage, 
was adopted by a vote of fourteen for and seven against, five 
refusing to vote A resolution was introduced, “That every 
member of our Society shall contribute freely, quarterly, 
twenty-five cents or more as the Lord prospers him.” There 
seems to have been a combination, of those that thought the 
amount named was too small and those that thought it was too 
large, to compass its defeat. The vote was twenty-three against 
and four for. 

Licensing Women to Preach 

A report against granting a woman petitioner the rights 
of a minister was adopted unanimously, the report stating, 
“We do not think the gospel authorizes the introduction of 
females into the ministry in the sense in which she requests it.” 

This may be the most suitable point at which to notice 
the place given to women in the Church and in its work. In 
Otterbein's church in Baltimore at an early period the names 
of adult males only were recorded. But in most cases these 
stood for families. In Otterbein’s time, separate class meet¬ 
ings were maintained for women. In many congregations, 
whether in churches or school houses, men and women sat on 
opposite sides of the house down to as late as 1850 and beyond. 

From the time of the first General Conference in 1815 
women voted for delegates the same as men, and later, when 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


425 


the laity was represented in the General Conference, no special 
act was needed in order to secure their admission as delegates. 
But the most vexed question was as to the licensing and ordain¬ 
ing of women to preach. At the session of Scioto conference 
in 1841, a committee consisting of E. Vandemark, William 
Hastings, and H. Kumler, Jr., one of the Bishops, was ap¬ 
pointed to wait on Sister L. Courtland, who had an impression 
that the Lord was calling her to some public work in his vine¬ 
yard, and asked counsel as to her prompting and the kind of 
work that she might do. As the committee seemed to have no 
solution in the case, another committee, consisting of John 
Coons, W. R. Rhinehart, and William McCabe, was appointed 
further to consider the case, as the conference could not de¬ 
termine whether she was “called to preach, teach, or exhort.” 
The second committee was unable to decide whether said 
Sister Courtland “was under the influence of the Holy Ghost 
either to preach, teach, or exhort,” and so could not give her 
“license or permit to exercise in either of the above-named 
callings.” Yet she was advised to “exercise according to her 
gifts and callings in promoting the cause of Christ on earth.” 
At the session of the Scioto conference in 1843, it was “re¬ 
solved that the prayer of Sister L. P. Clemens cannot be 
heard, asking to be set apart by laying on of hands to the 
prophetical office or as a minister of the word of God in the 
United Brethren Church,” the resolution concluding with 
words, “until the next annual conference.” 

The following license, if it is proper to call it such, was 
voted by the White River conference at its session in January, 
1847, being the first, as far as known, to be granted to a woman 
by an annual conference: “To all whom it may concern: 
Know ye that we commend unto you Charity Opheral, our 
sister, as an acceptable laborer in the gospel, and Church of 
the United Brethren in Christ.” 

Mrs. Lydia Sexton was given license to preach by a quar¬ 
terly conference in Illinois conference in 1851. From this 
time, she had many calls to preach and conduct special meet¬ 
ings, and responded with uniform acceptability and success. 


426 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


In 1859, she was recommended to the Upper Wabash confer¬ 
ence for annual conference license, but Bishop Edwards ruled 
that there was no authority for granting a woman license to 
preach, whereupon the conference graciously recommended 
her as “a Christian lady of useful gifts as a pulpit speaker,” 
and commended her to the churches ‘‘as a useful helper in the 
work of Christ.” She was long and usefully employed. Be¬ 
ginning with 1870, she served for a time with notable success 
as the chaplain of the Kansas State penitentiary. She died 
December 15, 1894, in her ninety-sixth year. The General 
Conference of 1889 removed all distinctions as to the licensing 
and ordination of w T omen. 

A further act of the General Conference of 1845 was the 
removal of the restriction against the discussion of the slavery 
question in the Religious Telescope, eleven votes being cast 
for the motion and nine against it. In some cases the elder 
Kumler voted on one side and the younger Kumler voted on 
the other side. This was precisely the time when the old was 
losing its hold, to a considerable extent, and new alignments 
were being made. It was ordered that the Religious Telescope 
be issued weekly, that the Busy Martha, the German paper, 
be discontinued, that th e editorial work and the financial side 
in the Printing Establishment be in the hands of different 
persons elected for the respective purposes. David Edwards 
was elected editor, and J. Markwood treasurer and financial 
agent. The latter, however, declined to serve, and Nehemiah 
Altman was appointed in his place. At this time, it was ordered 
that all subscribers to the Religious Telescope pay in advance. 
Provision was made for the publication of a new hymn book 
and also a history of the Church. The great amount of 
attention given at this time to the Printing Establishment 
may be explained from the fact that this was the only depart¬ 
mental interest belonging to the Church at this time. True, 
a missionary board was elected in 1841, and continued in 1845, 
but nothing was being done. The benevolent fund for supple¬ 
menting the support of preachers and their families was re¬ 
ceiving some attention, but its results were disappointing. 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


427 


Education. 

At this conference, after considerable agitation, the sub¬ 
ject of education received attention, the caring for the same, 
however, was devolved on the annual conferences. The action 
of the General Conference, being the first step in what came 
to be a general movement, had much significance. The follow¬ 
ing were the resolutions adopted on this subject: “Resolved, 
that proper measures be adopted to establish an institution of 
learning. Resolved, that it be recommended to the attention 
of the annual conferences, avoiding, however, irredeemable 
debts.” The vote on the adoption of the resolutions stood 
nineteen for and five against. In the account of the depart¬ 
ment of education, the history of education in the Church will 
be traced. 


Evangelism. 

On whatever other subject the fathers might be divided, 
they were a unit on the subject of evangelism and the enlarging 
of the boundaries of Zion. In the preceding quadrennium, 
there had been a large increase in the members of the Church 
and the extent of the territory in which work was being carried 
forward. This was true especially in parts of the West. In 
1842, there was reported in the Wabash conference territory an 
increase of membership in a single year of two thousand one 
hundred forty-four, with outposts in Illinois, Wisconsin, and 
Iowa. So, in the General Conference, there was appointed 
a committee of one member from each conference, except that 
the Wabash conference should have two members, to divide 
the territory occupied by the Church into new conference 
districts. While the West was particularly in mind, the East 
was not passed by. The Pennsylvania conference territory 
was divided into the East Pennsylvania district and the West 
Pennsylvania district, the Susquehanna river, for the most 
part, being the dividing line. The new conferences formed 
in the West were the St. Joseph, the Illinois, and the Iowa, 
with an authorization for the formation of the White River. 
The St. Joseph was to include northern Indiana and southern 
Michigan, west of a line produced by the extension north of 


428 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the Ohio and Indiana State line. The Iowa, Illinois, and St. 
Joseph conference districts were formed from the territory 
cultivated by the Wabash conference, except that Sandusky 
lost some territory, previously cultivated by it, to the St. 
Joseph conference. Likewise, some territory that the Miami 
and the Indiana conferences had entered, went to the St. Jo¬ 
seph conference. Illinois conference was awarded all of north¬ 
western Illinois and the territory occupied in Wisconsin. Iowa 
was awarded what then was the Territory of Iowa. The 
development of the Church within the various conference dis¬ 
tricts will be noticed later. 

A New Board of Bishops. 

In 1845, an entirely new board of Bishops was elected— 
John Russel, then representing Pennsylvania conference, J. J. 
Glossbrenner, of Virginia conference, and William Hanby, of 
Scioto conference. 

John Russel was born March 18, 1799, on Pipe Creek, 
Maryland. His parents were earnest Christians, and from 
them he had the advantage of intelligent and sympathetic 
direction. Though of a buoyant and social disposition, his 
youth was not sullied by vice and folly. His religious im¬ 
pressions came early, and when but a youth he was converted. 
He learned the trade of blacksmithing, but had strong drawings 
toward the ministry, toward which work he was encouraged 
and assisted by his father. He was licensed to exhort in 1818, 
and began preaching that year in Virginia. Then he preached 
for a short time on a circuit, mostly in Pennsylvania. The 
circuit is described as “starting at Hagerstown, Maryland, 
thence to Greencastle, Chambersburg, Carlisle, Shiremans- 
town, Wormleysburg, up the Conodoguinet, crossing the 
mountain at Sterret's Gap into Sherman's valley, out to Finn's 
Ridge, Buffalo Valley, Path Valley, Turkey Valley, Amberson's 
Valley, and back to Hagerstown." In the spring of 1819, 
Bishop Newcomer took him to Ohio. He was received that 
year into the Miami conference as a preacher, and placed the 
first six months on the Lancaster circuit, and the second six 
months on the Miami circuit. When the Scioto conference 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


429 


was formed in 1825, his labors were given in that conference 
up to 1838, except that he served as presiding elder in 1834 
in the newly-formed Sandusky conference. As one of the 
trustees of the Printing Establishment at its founding in 1834, 
he did a very large part in making that enterprise possible 
and successful. From 1838 to 1841, he was pastor of Otter- 
bein’s church in Baltimore, Maryland. Fie continued to reside 
in Maryland the remainder of his life. Fie was a delegate to 
the General Conferences of 1829, 1833, 1841, 1845, 1853, and 
1857. Besides his serving as Bishop the term beginning 1849, 
he served a term as German Bishop, beginning in 1857. We 
can see, therefore, how large a place he had in the confidence 
and counsels of the Church. He was a man of heroic mold, 
both physically and mentally, and his soundness of heart and 
purpose matched his otherwise great qualities. His applica¬ 
tion to his studies and his work made him proficient in thinking 
and speaking. His hard common sense made him successful 
in his management of his own affairs and the affairs of the 
Church entrusted to him. In some things he seemed almost 
hopelessly conservative, but he was thoroughly sincere, and 
could modify his opinions and change his course. He had the 
rare art of working through others. He led a number of young 
men into the ministry. He sought by the gift of $10,000 to 
found a sort of itinerating chair for the education of young 
men entering the ministry. But the time for that kind of 
methods was past. He died December 21, 1870. 

J. J. Glossbrenner began his long career as Bishop in 1845, 
a period of forty years as active Bishop. The account of his 
youth and first years in the ministry already has been given in 
connection with the account of the first sessions of Virginia 
conference. He was first led out beyond Virginia and Mary¬ 
land by his election as a delegate to the General Conference 
of 1837, followed by his election as a delegate to the General 
Conferences of 1841 and 1845. The Church has been fortunate 
in having three Bishops whose long terms have bound together 
the earlier and the later years—Newcomer serving from 1813 
to 1830, H. Kumler, Sr., from 1825 to 1845, and Glossbrenner 
from 1845 to 1885. Bishop Glossbrenner was a gospel preacher 


430 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


of high rank, a model presiding officer, and a judicious ad¬ 
ministrator. His heart beat loyally with the heart of the 
Church. He was naturally conservative, but his eyes were 
not closed to the possibility of new and larger things. By 
living in a slave State, and in consequence of being shut up 
in the South by the Civil war, some difficulties and misunder¬ 
standings came to exist for a time, but his sincerity and straight¬ 
forwardness remained the same from first to last. Other great 
and good leaders the Church has had, but it has had and will 
have but one J. J. Glossbrenner. In 1885, when the infirmities 
of age were weighing heavily upon him, the General Confer¬ 
ence honored him by making him emeritus Bishop, leaving 
him to render such service as his strength might permit. He 
died January 7, 1887. His body rests in the cemetery at 
Churchville, Virginia. 

In the life of William Hanby, there was such a diversity 
of experiences and employments as makes a brief sketch diffi¬ 
cult. His life was full of pathos, of struggle against wind and 
tide, and of conscientious and faithful toil. He was born in 
Washington county, Pennsylvania, April 8, 1808. His parents 
being poor, when he was seventeen years of age, he was appren¬ 
ticed to a harness and saddle maker for a term of five years; 
but he was treated so brutally that after three years he made 
his escape and came to Somerset, Ohio, where he found a good 
home and employment at his trade. Afterward, he went 
back to Pennsylvania and paid his hard master the full claim 
that he had against him. In 1830, he was converted under the 
labors of Nathaniel Havens, soon afterward being impressed 
that he should preach the gospel. In 1831, he was licensed to 
preach by the Scioto conference, and in 1833 was placed on a 
charge with twenty-eight appointments. In 1834, he was 
made presiding elder, with all of Scioto conference territory as 
his field. He continued as presiding elder for three years. 
He was sent as a delegate to the General Conference in 1837, 
and by that conference was made treasurer and financial agent 
for the printing establishment. In 1839, on the resignation 
of William R. Rhinehart as editor of the Religious Telescope 
the duties of editor were added to the duties that he already 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


431 


had, and the General Conference of 1841 saw fit to continue 
him in this double capacity. It is generally conceded that it 
was his financial strictness and perseverance that saved the 
Publishing Establishment from perishing from infantile par¬ 
alysis. We cannot estimate the cost to a man with a deep 
heart-life in having to devote his days and nights to searching 
over the list of delinquent subscribers and hunting up places 
for awkward economies. As Bishop from 1845 to 1849, his 
good ability in preaching, and his talent for affairs enabled 
him to render good and acceptable service to the Church. 
From 1849 to 1853, he again served as editor of the Religious 
Telescope. The need for the class of abilities that he possessed 
led to his being called to take up again in the year 1852-1853, 
in addition to his editorial work, the duties of financial agent 
of the Printing Establishment. After this time, he was inter¬ 
ested and active in assisting, as he was able, in the local work 
of the church in Westerville, Ohio, where he came to reside, 
and also in such general work as came within his range. A 
valuable piece of historical work that he performed was the 
preparing of an outline history of the Church, giving the 
principal events in chronological order from 1825 to 1849, 
making somewhat less than half of what appeared in 1851 as 
Spayth's “History of the Church of the United Brethren in 
Christ.” 


General Conference of 1849. 

The tenth General Conference met May 14, 1849, at 
Germantown, Ohio, Bishops Russel, Hanby and Glossbrenner 
being in attendance. The following is the list of delegates, 
together with the names of conferences represented: Virginia, 
Jacob Markwood, Jacob Bachtel, Henry Burtner; East Penn¬ 
sylvania, Christian Peffly, Jacob Roop, David Gingerich; West 
Pennsylvania, Jacob Erb, George Miller, John Fohl; Allegheny, 
J. B. Ressler, J. R. Sitman, William Beighle; Muskingum, S. C. 
Steward, A. S. Wade, John Todd; Sandusky, Alfred Spracklin, 
H. G. Spayth, J. C. Bright; Scioto, Joshua Montgomery, David 
Edwards, Matthias Ambrose; Miami, William R. Rhinehart, 
William Davis, Henry Kumler, Jr.; Indiana, Henry Bone- 


432 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


brake, L. S. Chittenden, John Lopp; White River, Daniel 
Stover, W. W. Richardson, C. W. Witt; St. Joseph, J. Thomas, 
J. M. Hershey, E. H. Lamb; Wabash, James Griffith, J. P. 
Shuey, John Hoobler; Illinois, Josiah Terrel. John Denham 
and James Davis elected from Illinois conference, and John R. 
Everhart, A. A. Zellers and F. R. S. Byrd, elected from Iowa 
conference, did not attend because of distance and cost. 

Revision and Administration. 

The most memorable act at this session of the General 
Conference was the adoption, after a long and earnest discus¬ 
sion of the following rule of discipline in reference to secret 
societies: 

"Freemasonry, in every sense of the word, shall be totally 
prohibited, and there shall be no connection with secret com¬ 
binations; (a secret combination is one whose initiatory cere¬ 
mony or bond of union is a secret); and any member found 
connected with such society shall be affectionately admonished 
by the preacher in charge, twice or thrice, and, if such member 
does not desist in a reasonable time, he shall be notified to 
appear before the tribunal to which he is amenable; and, if he 
still refuses to desist, he shall be expelled from the Church/' 

The rule was adopted, thirty-three yeas, Markwood and 
Bachtel voting nay, and Burtner and Rhinehart not voting. 
The chief change was in the introduction of the designation 
"secret combinations" with the definition of the same. The 
Constitution of 1841 had forbidden connection with "secret 
combinations," and the act of the conference was designed to 
make this effective in administration. This was the first 
serious beginning of the struggle over this subject in the 
General Conferences that reached its climax in the General 
Conference of 1877. 

In this period, it was customary for some member to read 
the Discipline through for amendments, beginning with the 
Constitution and Confession of Faith. At this session, William 
Davis was the reader. Several motions looking to the supple¬ 
menting or amending of the Confession of Faith were offered 
but did not prevail. As before noticed, a motion was made 
to expunge the Constitution as not legally adopted. Of course, 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


433 


the motion did not prevail. A resolution was offered directing 
the removal of the “Telescope office” to Cincinnati in order 
to secure more favorable facilities. This was lost by a vote 
of twenty-nine to six. 

The long-desired rule forbidding using ardent spirits as 
a beverage, as an addition to the former rule prohibiting the 
manufacture and sale of the same, was adopted, “with the 
utmost enthusiasm and without a single dissenting voice.” 
The members of the Otterbein congregation at Baltimore were 
recognized as members of the Church under their own name 
and charter. A feature of the session was the examining of 
the annual conferences by a committee of the whole as to their 
following the rules and principles of the Church in their ad¬ 
ministration. Virginia was accused in regard to slavery; 
St. Joseph, in regard to receiving an expelled preacher; Miami, 
in regard to secret societies; and West Pennsylvania, in regard 
to distilling. After explanations and promises and some 
declaration of principles, all “passed.” 

David Edwards was reelected editor of the Religious 
Telescope, and, on his declining, William Hanby was elected 
in his place He had served as editor before, from 1839 to 
1845. David Strickler was elected editor of the Busy Martha 
the German paper, which, after being discontinued, was revived 
in October, 1846, under the name of the German Telescope. 
Nehemiah Altman was reelected publishing agent. Jacob Erb 
was elected Bishop after an interval of four years following a 
period of eight years as Bishop. J. J. Glossbrenner was re¬ 
elected Bishop, and David Edwards was elected Bishop for his 
first term. 


Bishop David Edwards. 

David Edwards was born May 5, 1816, in north Wales. 
His parents were pious and upright members of the Dissenters 
or Congregational church. In 1821, the Edwards family 
emigrated to America, landing at Baltimore, Maryland, where 
thjey remained two years. The parents here became connected 
with that branch of the Presbyterian family known as the 
Seceders. In 1823 the family moved to Delaware, Ohio, where 


434 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the father worked at his trade as a stone mason. In the 
Sabbath school and in the home, valuable instruction and 
encouragement were received. In 1825, Edward Edwards, 
the father, died, leaving the care of six children to the mother. 
Up to his twelfth year, David had received but twelve months 
of regular schooling, all that he ever received. At this time, 
he was placed in a woolen factory at Delaware, as an appren¬ 
tice, and began to learn the carding and cloth-dressing trade. 
At seventeen he found employment at his trade at Rock Mills, 
seven miles above Lancaster, Ohio. Here he was converted. 
In 1835, he received quarterly conference license to preach, 
and not long afterward became the assistant of Matthias Am¬ 
brose, the preacher in charge of Pickaway circuit. In 1836, 
he became a member of Scioto conference, and that year was 
placed on Brush Creek circuit along with John Eckart, an 
experienced German preacher. The circuit included parts of 
Highland, Adams, and Brown counties. All this can be told 
glibly, but to David Edwards every step was marked by the 
hardest struggles and the profoundest experiences. With him, 
nothing could be commonplace. The divine call and unction 
from above, along with diligent reading, close study, and hard 
work, are the explanation of his power and usefulness from 
first to last. His Welsh birth, his unsullied youth, his indus¬ 
try, his rugged convictions furnished the living connections 
in making him the great preacher and worthy Bishop that he 
became. His four years as editor of the Religious Telescope 
had made him well known to the Church. Beginning with 
1849, he served consecutively twenty-seven years as Bishop. 
All of this time, his field was in the western part of the Church, 
except the last three years, which were devoted to the work of 
superintendence in the East district. When the Unity Maga¬ 
zine was launched in 1853 and the Children's Friend in 1854, 
he became editor of these publications, serving until 1857. 
In his preaching and editorial work, in connection with em¬ 
phasizing the doctrine of faith and the divine work of regenera¬ 
tion, he unceasingly laid stress on the duty and privilege of 
holiness. Some of his earlier singularities he laid aside later, 
as his opposition to the wearing of a beard, to fire insurance. 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


435 


and to scholastic titles, but the profound convictions of his 
life, while their accidents might change, remained in principle 
the same. His opposition to slavery, strong drink, secret 
societies, and instrumental music, in a part or all of his course, 
happily was accompanied and guarded by the hold that he 
had on the positive elements of the gospel. To all of the 
interests of the Church, in its plastic and formative period, 
Bishop Edwards gave intelligent and hearty support. He died 
in the Bishop's parsonage in Baltimore, Maryland, June 6, 
1876. His body was brought to Dayton, Ohio, and there 
buried in beautiful Woodland cemetery, where a suitable 
monument, purchased by contributions from all parts of the 
Church, was erected to his memory. 

General Conference of 1853. 

The eleventh General Conference met at Miltonville, 
Butler county, Ohio, May 9,1853. The Bishops present were 
Glossbrenner, Erb, and Edwards. The annual conferences were 
represented as follows: Pennsylvania, J. Russel, A. Owen, J. C. 
Smith; East Pennsylvania, S. Dresbach, S. Vonnieda, J. A. 
Sand; Miami, H. Kumler, Jr., J. Hill, J. Coons; Virginia, J. 
Markwood, J. Bach tel, G. B. Rimel; Scioto, J. Montgomery, 

H. Jones, M. Ambrose; Allegheny, J. B. Resler, S. S. Snyder, 

I. Potter; White River, J. T. Vardaman, D. Stover, W. W. 
Richardson; Iowa, F. R. S. Byrd, A. A. Sellers; Muskingum, 
S. Weaver, E. Slutts, C. Carter; Sandusky, J. Lawrence, J. C. 
Bright, A. Biddle; Illinois, J. Kenoyer, J. Terrel; Wabash, 

J. Griffith, A. Wimsett, J. P. Shuey; St. Joseph, J. B. Slight, 
J. Fetterhoff, J. Surran; Indiana, J. Lopp, L. S. Chittenden, 
D. Shuck. 

Miltonville was a small village or community center near 
which was the family homestead of Henry Kumler, Sr. Here 
there was an excellent United Brethren society, provided with 
a good church building erected about 1826. 

Missionary Work. 

One of the chief subjects brought before the conference 
was the more efficient organization of the Church for missionary 


436 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


work at home and abroad. To this end, a formal missionary 
constitution was adopted and officers were elected. The 
General Conference of 1841 organized “The Parent Missionary 
Society of the United Brethren in Christ,” and provided it 
with a constitution very similar to that adopted in 1853. The 
chief difference was in that the “annual conferences and travel¬ 
ing preachers” were made agents “to establish district, circuit, 
and class societies, auxiliary to the parent society,” and 
“persons paying any sum annually” were “considered mem¬ 
bers for the time being.” In other words, the conferences, 
circuits, and classes were to form themselves into societies, 
and individual members of classes were to join a class society 
by paying some amount, whereas the constitution of 1853 took 
the conferences in their existing character as a part of the 
missionary organization, and took all of the members of the 
Church, by virtue of that fact, as being members of the mission¬ 
ary society. While the constitution named one dollar as the 
basis for yearly membership, this stood against the general 
character of the constitution, and was left out in 1861. The 
officers were to be a president, vice-president, corresponding 
secretary, treasurer, and six managers. The officers of the 
old society between 1841 and 1849 did almost nothing. In 
1849, the General Conference ordered that the “old foreign 
missionary society be immediately revived,” and reappointed 
the former officers. The officers elected in 1845 were J. Russel, 
president; J. J. Glossbrenner, William Hanby, vice-presidents: 
J. Montgomery, corresponding secretary; Jonathan Dresbach, 
treasurer; and George Dresbach, E. Vandemark, and William 
Leist, managers. The first money raised in the Church for 
foreign missions, as the “contemplated Oregon mission” was 
regarded, was reported February 1, 1849, from Rocky Spring 
circuit, Pennsylvania, by J. M. Bishop, as follows: John 
Jones promises to raise a steer worth $20 or $25, available in 
three years; John Crider, Henry S. Crider, Joseph S. Crider, 
Benjamin S. Huber, Sr., John Huber, Jacob Carmany, J. M. 
Bishop, each one hog worth on an average $5, available next 
fall; John Bashore, $2. Payments on these pledges were made 
from time to time. The pledges were made before the “old 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


437 


society” was revived. September 1, 1851, Rev. J. Fohl, then 
pastor of Lancaster circuit, East Pennsylvania conference, 
succeeded in securing a subscription of $625 for missionary 
purposes. At a missionary meeting at Canal Winchester, 
Ohio, in response to an appeal made by Lewis Davis, after an 
address by T. J. Conner, the sum of five hundred dollars was 
secured. Bishop Glossbrenner raised a missionary collection 
at the session of the Virginia conference in the spring of 1851. 
In January, 1852, T. J. Conner, of White River conference, 
was appointed a missionary to Oregon. He was successful in 
awakening a large measure of interest in a plan to send a 
United Brethren colony to Oregon with a view thus to begin 
missionary work in Oregon. This was denominated foreign 
missionary work. April 22, 1853, the old Parent Board of 
Foreign and Frontier missions met in Circleville, Ohio, for the 
purpose of preparing a report to the General Conference. 
William Hanby, vice-president, presided. The other officers 
present were J. Montgomery, corresponding secretary, J. Dres- 
bach, treasurer, and George Dresbach and E. Vandemark, 
managers. To this time, $1,622 had been paid in. According 
to agreement, $1,000 had been paid to T. J. Conner, and $150 
to J. Kenoyer toward their expenses in the journey to Ore¬ 
gon, and $27.14 had been paid in incidental expenses. 

Mr. Conner left his home February 4, 1853, for his long 
journey. On May 3, he reached Council Bluffs, Iowa, where 
his company was to assemble. Sixteen families gathered here, 
in all about ninety-eight persons. Besides T. J. Conner and 
J. Kenoyer, there were four other ministers. So, when the 
General Conference founded its new missionary organization 
in 1853, the missionary company sponsored by the earlier 
board was well started on its journey across the plains. The 
officers elected in 1853 were J. J. Glossbrenner, president; 
D. Edwards, L. Davis, and H. Kumler, Jr., vice-presidents; 
J. Emerick, treasurer; and J. C. Bright, secretary; D. B. 
Crouse, John Kemp, Jr., D. Shuck, John Dodds, William Long- 
street, and T. N. Sowers, managers. A great advantage to 
this board of officers was that it had the services of a paid 
secretary that could give his whole time to the work of missions; 


438 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


but its most particular advantage was in having J. C. Bright 
as that secretary. His first great duty was to awaken the 
Church, and for that he had special qualifications. John Kemp 
was made treasurer of the society. 

The result of taking up the missionary work in this earnest 
and well-determined manner was the founding in 1855, of the 
African mission. The Church always had pleaded the cause 
of the Negro in America, and when foreign missionary work 
was decided on Africa was the first and almost the only field 
that received attention. W. J. Shuey, D. K. Flickinger and 
D. C. Kumler, M.D., all ministers of the Miami conference, 
set sail from New York in January, 1855, and on February 26, 
after a voyage of thirty-four days, arrived at Freetown, Sierra 
Leone, West Africa. The fortunes and misfortunes of this 
mission will be traced in another connection. Whatever the 
mission has meant to Africa, it has meant equally as much to 
the United Brethren Church in the home land. 

Infant Baptism. 

A considerable amount of time and attention was given 
to the matter of infant baptism. The Church always had 
given liberty as to the mode of baptism, but now the question 
was as to the subjects of baptism. Some preachers had spoken 
lightly of infant baptism, and others had taken delight in 
baptizing again those that had been baptized in infancy. 
Henry Kumler, Jr., moved that those thus offending should be 
regarded as traducers of their brethren, and that one who 
administered baptism to an adult that had been baptized in 
infancy should be brought to trial for the same. He believed 
that for himself in his baptism as a child he had actually re¬ 
ceived grace that had tendered his heart toward personal 
religion in his early years. The conference forbade disrespect 
toward infant baptism and those that saw fit to make use of 
the same, but did not go further. 

Depravity. 

The conference turned itself into a debating society or 
theological school on the subject of depravity. In general, 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


439 


the Western delegates and the German delegates from different 
parts of the Church were classed as partial depravity men, 
while those on the other side were classed as total depravity 
men. The discussion rose out of the resolution to place in the 
Discipline the question for candidates for the ministry, “Do 
you believe in natural hereditary total depravity as held by 
the Church?” Even after the resolution was considerably 
modified and toned down by explanation, it prevailed by only 
twenty-three votes for to nineteen against. The question was 
destined to come up again at the next session of the General 
Conference. 

A petition for lay delegation was presented to the General 
Conference of 1849, but it was ignored. The subject came up 
by petition to the General Conference in 1853. A few members 
were favorable to lay delegation but the majority regarded it 
as unscriptural and inexpedient. 

“Telescope Office” Removed. 

The question of the removal of the “Telescope office” 
from Circleville to some larger town or city had been agitated 
for a considerable time. The question came up at this time 
for settlement. Those favoring Circleville as the permanent 
location urged the measure of success already attained there, 
and the loss, in the case of a change, to the people that, on 
account of the Telescope office, had become located at Circle¬ 
ville. Besides, the people of Circleville had offered a bonus 
of two thousand dollars and some other advantageous condi¬ 
tions to retain the office. A. Biddle was put forward to repre¬ 
sent the claims of Dayton as affording better facilities. In 
1850, Circleville had 3,411 inhabitants, and Dayton 10,976. 
Cincinnati was regarded as having too many competitive 
institutions, and as not being surrounded with Church in¬ 
fluence. A number of the delegates had stopped at Dayton 
on their way to Miltonville. When the vote was taken, a 
large majority voted for Dayton as the permanent location. 
Four Dayton laymen had guaranteed that the removal of the 
office should not cost more than forty dollars, but for some 
reason they did not honor their pledge in full. The equipment 


440 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


of the office was taken from Circleville to Columbus on the 
canal, and was taken from Columbus to Xenia on two freight 
cars, and thence transported in wagons to Dayton. Property 
was bought in Dayton at the corner of Main and Fourth streets, 
the lot having a front on Main street of 59M feet, and a depth 
of 152 feet, the cost being $11,000. At the time, it was thought 
by the trustees that all but a lot forty feet front by one hundred 
feet in depth could be sold soon for $7,000, and that the ground 
retained would be more than sufficient for a hundred years. 
Later, the ground thought not needed was sold. We see how 
limited was the vision of the Church at that time. The Pub¬ 
lishing House from this time was made subject, in the intervals 
of the General Conference, simply to the trustees and not to 
an annual conference. The trustees elected at this time were 
named from five annual conferences as follows: L. S. Chitten¬ 
den, of Indiana, C. W. Witt, of White River, J. C. Bright, of 
Sandusky, Lewis Davis, of Scioto, and H. Kumler, Jr., of 
Miami. The other elections resulted as follows: John Law¬ 
rence, editor of the Religious Telescope; Henry Staub, editor 
of the German paper; D. Edwards, editor of the Unity Maga¬ 
zine and Children’s Friend; S. Vonnieda, publishing agent; 
and J. J. Glossbrenner, D. Edwards, and Lewis Davis, Bishops. 

For a number of years, there had been a large increase in 
evangelistic work, resulting in the establishment of new 
boundaries and widely scattered outposts. To meet the new 
conditions, eight new conferences were formed: Rock River, 
Erie, Maumee (later called Auglaize), Michigan, Des Moines, 
Oregon, German, and Missouri. Missouri had but three 
preachers and twenty members. The Oregon at this time was 
but a prospect. The German was a new beginning in Ohio 
and adjacent territory. The formation of some of these new 
conferences was more an expression of faith than of achieve¬ 
ment. 


Bishop Lewis Davis. 

Following the plan to give brief notices of the Bishops 
as they enter on the duties of their office, we may now turn 
our attention to the life of the newly-elected Bishop. Lewis 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


441 


Davis was born in Craig (then a part of Botetourt) county, 
Virginia, February 14, 1814. His father was of Welsh and 
his mother of Scotch descent. The family, consisting of four 
daughters and two sons, lived on a small farm from which a 
scanty subsistence was derived. School and neighborhood 
advantages were but slight. When Lewis was grown up, he 
went to the town of New Castle, near his home, and found 
employment with Jacob Hammond, a blacksmith engaged in 
making edge tools. He remained with him three years, in 
which time he became proficient in the trade at which he 
worked. While here, he had the comfort of a good home with 
his employer, and was surrounded with good influences. He 
received benefit from belonging to a debating society. Mr. 
Hammond was a member of the Methodist church. A minister 
by the name of Cullom, who often was entertained in his 
home, was of great benefit to young Davis, who ascribed to 
him both his spiritual and intellectual awakening. While 
living in this home, Mr. Davis was converted, but did not 
unite with any church. He next had the advantage of eighteen 
months schooling in an academy in New Castle. After this, 
he traveled about in adjacent parts of the country, and a 
little later, with two companions, he went in a roaming way 
to the western part of what now is West Virginia. On his 
return, he halted on Coal Creek, a branch of the Great Kanawha 
where he was persuaded to teach school for a term of three 
months, and then for six months longer. About this time, 
W. W. Davis, a young minister of Scioto conference, found 
him, or discovered him, and placed a United Brethren Disci¬ 
pline in his hands. He was pleased with the form of govern¬ 
ment, and rules and principles set forth in the Discipline, and 
joined the United Brethren Church. It also should be said 
that the friendly man with whom he boarded while teaching 
school was a member of the United Brethren Church, 

Beginning with 1835, the Scioto conference had a mission 
in Virginia, and a little later took over from the Virginia confer¬ 
ence the adjoining Jackson mission at the request of that 
conference. This work in Virginia was not of permanent 
consequence to the Scioto conference, but the securing of 


442 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Lewis Davis was a particular gain, the value of which it would 
be hard to estimate. In 1838, either in Virginia or Ohio, he 
received a quarterly conference license to preach, and in 1839 
became a member of the Scioto conference. The first three 
years he traveled the large circuits of southern Ohio. In 1842 
he was made the stationed preacher at Circleville. The next 
year, he acted as a solicitor for the Publishing House. After 
further serving as circuit preacher, he was made presiding 
elder. From this work, he soon was taken to assist in laying 
the foundations for the educational work of the Church, a 
work with which he stood connected through the remainder of 
his life. While traveling preacher, he kept to his studies with 
great determination. His naturally strong mind, the experi¬ 
ences through which he passed in youth, and now his practical 
acquaintance with the conditions and problems of the Church, 
seemed to make him the man for the new day and the new 
task. He was the first financial agent for the first school 
established by the Church, and himself made the first subscrip¬ 
tion for the founding of the first school. Some in the Church 
were opposed to education in itself. Some were favorable to 
education, but did not believe that the Church should under¬ 
take this work. None favored schools for the sole or principal 
purpose of preparing those that are to preach the gospel. 
Against this inertia or opposition, the friends of education had 
to strive. Some of Mr. Davis' work was almost menial, such 
as looking after the condition of buildings and caring for the 
boarding house. He seemed formed and ordained to meet 
opposition, or to be insensible to it. His dying mother had 
called him to kneel at her bedside, and then, placing one thin 
hand on his head and with the other motioning toward her 
heart, had said, “ Cherish the truth here," and then, touching 
her lips with her hand said, “Put it here," a commission that 
he never forgot. He knew what it was to be scorned and 
threatened in Ohio as an abolitionist, and to be assailed and 
misunderstood throughout his life in his opposition to popular 
evils. After bearing for three years the financial burdens and 
performing the financial tasks of the new educational institu¬ 
tion founded in 1847 under the pretentious name of Otterbein 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


443 


University, in 1850, there were added to his duties and re¬ 
sponsibilities those of president of the institution. 

Still fulfilling his duties as president, he was elected Bishop 
unexpectedly in 1853, and the duties of both offices were 
carried together until 1857. On his reelection as Bishop in 
1857, he resigned the office of president. On the resignation 
of his successor as president in 1860, he resigned his office 
as Bishop to take up again the duties as president of the 
university. This position he continued to hold until 1871, 
when, on the founding of Union Biblical Seminary, the first 
and only theological school of the Church, he presented his 
resignation as president and became the senior professor, 
virtually president, of the Theological Seminary. In the Sem¬ 
inary, his department was that of systematic theology. In 
1868 the degree of doctor of divinity was conferred upon him by 
Washington and Jefferson College, of Pennsylvania. He con¬ 
tinued at the head of the Theological Seminary until 1885, 
when he relinquished the presidency, but continued to teach 
for another year. He died March 23, 1890. His body was 
placed in Woodland cemetery at Dayton, Ohio. A suitable 
granite monument stands at the head of his grave. Were it 
not for his prominence in the work of education, Doctor Davis 
would stand out as a great Bishop and churchman. He was 
dignified, self-possessed, and orderly. On the literary and 
scholarship sides, he always recognized the disadvantages 
under which he labored, yet the urgency of his messages and 
work commanded the materials and shaped the form of his 
spoken and written utterances in a most suitable and effective 
way. He was judicious in his personal affairs, and his home 
life had the regularity of clock-work. He was united in 
marriage September 1,1841, with Miss Rebecca Bartels, Bishop 
Edwards performing the ceremony. Mrs. Davis survived her 
husband by five years. Mary Englehart, a German girl, early 
became a helper in the home, and for forty-two years she was 
a mainstay for the work and order of the home. Hundreds of 
students at Otterbein University and Union Biblical Seminary 
had reason to remember with pleasure and gratitude the home 
that was made by Doctor Davis, Aunt Becky and Aunt Mary. 


444 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Life-long opposition to what Bishop Davis regarded as 
popular evils likely will continue to hold a prominent place in 
the estimate of his career and thus prevent a proper estimate 
of the positive side of his life and work. The law against secret 
societies, made more rigid as time passed, had his unwavering 
support, and, when the separation took place in the Church 
after the adoption of the revised Constitution and Confession 
of Faith, in 1889, he ceased active connection with the Church, 
although he allowed his name to remain on the roll of the local 
church. If the crisis had come earlier in his life, or if he had 
been more in touch with the situations in which multitudes of 
congregations were being distracted and broken up, the result 
might have been different. Yet, his course is not without 
explanation. A favorite statement with him was, “ First pure, 
then peaceable.” Another statement which he made the sub¬ 
ject of a lecture was, “I come not to send peace but a sword.” 
In relation to great and good men, we often meet the expression, 
“The defect of their virtues.” The truest saints and greatest 
men have their unfavorable liabilities, too often standing in 
the closest connection with their sainthood and greatness. 

Doctor Davis mentally and in heart was a man of heroic 
mold. Without intending it, and perhaps without knowing it, 
he was a hero worshipper. There was nothing petty in his 
own life. He had in his library a splendid work giving the 
lives of one hundred men selected for their outstanding great¬ 
ness. Yet his heart was as tender as that of a child. His last 
utterance was the repeating of the Shepherd Psalm. 

General Conference of 1857. 

The twelfth General Conference assembled at Cincinnati, 
Ohio, May 12, 1857. Bishops Glossbrenner, Edwards, and 
Davis presided. The annual conferences were represented as 
follows: Virginia, J. Bachtel, W. R. Coursey, J. Markwood; 
Muskingum, J. B. Bash, J. R. Shepler, J. Weaver; Sandusky, 
A. Biddle, C. Briggs, S. Lindsay; Iowa, M. Bowman, S. W. 
Kern, G. Miller; Michigan, A. Bowser, J. Lawrence, H. Rath- 
bun; Erie, A. Brazee, J. Carter, C. H. Carter; West Pennsyl¬ 
vania, J. Erb, J. Russel, W. B. Raber; Rock River, J. Bunton, 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


445 


S. Healy, S. Kretzinger; Indiana, L. S. Chittenden, D. Shuck, 
J. L. Stearns; Oregon, T. J. Conner; Des Moines, A. Corbin, 
J. Hopkins, A. A. Sellers; Miami, W. Davis, H. Kumler, Jr., 
W. J. Shuey; Allegheny, W. B. Dick, J. B. Resler, J. R. Sit- 
man; Illinois, J. S. Dunham, J. Hoobler, J. A. Kenoyer; Ger¬ 
man, Christopher Flinchbaugh, J. Crider, J. Scholler; Scioto, B. 
Gillespie, J. Montgomery, D. Shrader; Wabash, J. Griffith, 
J. P. Shuey, W. C. Smith; White River, A. Hanway, J. T. 
Vardaman, C. W. Witt; Maumee, W. Miller, J. Wilkison, 

T. J. Babcoke; St. Joseph, J. B. Slight, J. Thomas, J. S. Todd; 
East Pennsylvania, J. Stamm, A. Steigerwalt, J. Brewer; 
Missouri, J. Terrel. 

The conference was comfortably and conveniently cared 
for by the English and German churches in Cincinnati, under 
their respective pastors, W. J. Shuey and J. A. Sand. 

Bishops’ Address. 

For the first time the Bishops presented a formal address, 
reviewing the conditions of the Church and outlining the 
interests calling for the attention of the conference. At the 
preceding session, Bishop Glossbrenner had informally ad¬ 
dressed the conference along the same lines. The address 
indicated a healthy increase in membership and a growing 
conservation of results attained. For the first time in the 
history of the Church, relatively complete statistics were 
supplied, showing the number of members, preachers, and so 
forth. From the first, there had been a prejudice against 
“ numbering Israel.” For about twenty years, however, be¬ 
ginnings had been made in particular conferences in the gather¬ 
ing of statistics, but no assembling for the entire Church had 
been made. All estimates made in previous years were ex¬ 
aggerated greatly, due likely to so many persons that were 
half-way adherents being considered members. Four years 
before, the number of members was given roundly as one 
hundred thousand. As the first statistics ever attempted to 
be given for the Church, the report of numbers as given by 
the Bishops should be indicated here: Preaching places, 
3,891; classes, 1,616; itinerant preachers, 199; local preachers, 


446 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


417; members, 61,399; meeting houses, 776; Sabbath schools, 
1,009. 

The new conferences authorized were the Canada, Ne¬ 
braska, Kansas, Minnesota, Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Parkers¬ 
burg (by a division of Virginia conference). The Kentucky 
Conference at this time was little more than a name. 

A sharp contention again was excited over the subject 
of infant baptism, but by the change of a single phrase in the 
Confession of Faith, the difficulty was overcome. The phrase, 
‘‘in this respect/' in the clause forbidding the traducing of 
brethren, having apparently a limited reference, was changed 
to “in these respects," so as to assure liberty of judgment and 
practice as to all things belonging to the ordinances. The 
proposition looking to lay delegations received favorable con¬ 
sideration but failed of adoption. 

The Depravity Question Settled. 

The subject of greatest interest to come before the con¬ 
ference was that of depravity. This is the only great doc¬ 
trinal subject that has seriously divided the ministry of the 
Church. The division was so nearly equal between the total 
depravity and partial depravity men that the unity of the 
Church seemed seriously to be menaced. It is hard to imagine 
now how seriously the subject was regarded by the contending 
parties, and how earnestly and ably it was debated. The 
committee on revision recommended that the former state¬ 
ments on the subject be stricken out and the following question, 
as it finally was shaped, be substituted: “Do you believe that 
man, abstract of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, is fallen 
from original righteousness and is destitute of holiness but 
is inclined to evil and only evil and that continually; and that 
except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of 
God?" The recommended change was approved by the con¬ 
ference with but a single dissenting vote. The joy produced 
by the successful passing of this crisis was such as to bring 
tears to the eyes of many. On motion of W. J. Shuey, the 
members of the conference rose and sang “Praise God, from 
whom all blessings flow." The following statement of the 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


447 


case, though somewhat extended, may be incorporated from 
the writer's Life of Bishop Glossbrenner: 

“The question was settled, and has remained settled. 
The reason why a settlement was possible may quite readily 
be seen. There was not a radical difference in doctrine, but 
rather a difference in view, caused by looking from different 
standpoints. One side said that we must take a man as he is 
found, as he exhibits himself; that man, destitute of all noble 
feeling and purpose, is purely a hypothetical being; that divine 
grace has kept man from passing into such character. Thus, 
they took the standpoint subsequent to the bestowment of 
grace, and from this standpoint it would be difficult to prove 
them incorrect. The other side held that there were points 
that this view did not reach, and that it was easy from this 
standpoint at once to minify the loss that man had sustained, 
and the grace that brought salvation. Carried out, this 
second view meant that actual man, not hypothetical man, is 
found back of the grace that has been lent him; that a definition 
of man's moral character should take into view what he holds 
in his own right, and not what he has the mere use of, even 
though grace should have continued it with our first parents, 
and it be descended in the form of an economy under the 
regular laws of inheritance to all of their posterity. This 
grace, received without volition, does not root out or cover all 
unholiness. It may be viewed as a platform sustaining man 
on a salvable plane, and continuing to him moral ability. It 
may also be regarded under the figure of a covering, through 
the crevices and seams of which unutterable corruption and 
hopeless weakness may be seen, and a glimpse obtained of 
what man is in himself. Now, which one of these standpoints 
should be taken? The same men sometimes take one and 
sometimes the other. The Scriptures, to a certain extent, do 
the same thing. It is settled, however, by the experience of 
the church from the apostles down, that, when men are speak¬ 
ing theologically, in which case the view must answer to the 
strictest fact, the standpoint anterior to grace must be taken. 
Confusion and ruinous inferences are thus avoided. Man is 
made humble and divine grace is honored. At the same time, 


448 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


men are to be warned that they will be held accountable for 
all that grace has put within their reach, are to be addressed 
as at present capacitated, without its being necessary to explain 
at every moment that this strength was forfeited, but in its 
present measure graciously continued. Thus, according to 
our purpose, we may use now one conception and now the 
other. How r ever, we must know, and be able to make known 
the standpoint that we take. The definition as adopted in 
1857 had been broached at the General Conference four years 
before, but both parties were trying to reconcile their views 
from the post-promise standpoint, while much in the language 
used suited better the opposite standpoint. In the history of 
differences in ecclesiastical bodies, there are few parallels to 
the happy issue above described. Happy was it for the con¬ 
ference and the Church that a settlement that did not com¬ 
promise truth, or involve unnecessary humiliation or bitter¬ 
ness, was reached.” 

Bishops Glossbrenner, Edwards, and Davis were re¬ 
elected. H. Kumler, Jr. was elected German Bishop, but he 
subsequently resigned, on the ground, as he alleged, that the 
German work was discriminated against in that no provision 
was made for the support of the German Bishop. J. Russel, 
who had served as Bishop from 1845 to 1849, was elected to 
fill the vacancy. The other elections resulted as follows: 
Editor of the Religious Telescope, John Lawrence; editor of 
the Unity Magazine, Alexander Owen; editor of the German 
paper, J. Degmeier; missionary secretary, D. K. Flickinger; 
missionary treasurer, J. Kemp; publishing agent, S. Vonnieda, 
T. N. Sowers being subsequently appointed by the trustees of 
the Printing Establishment as assistant. 

A division to the annual conferences, according to the 
number of itinerants, of the principal and proceeds of the 
Benevolent Fund was ordered. The division, though author¬ 
ized by the General Conference in 1853, had not yet been 
carried into effect. 

Secret Societies. 

J. B. Ressler moved the adoption of the following in the 
place of the existing law on secret societies: “There shall be 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


449 


no connection with secret oath-bound combinations. Any 
member found in connection with such combination shall be 
affectionately admonished twice or thrice by the preacher in 
charge, and if such member does not desist in a reasonable 
time he shall be notified to appear before the tribunal to which 
he is amenable, and, if he still refuses to desist, he shall be 
expelled.” Following a pointed discussion, the proposed 
change was defeated by a vote of forty-six to five. The vote 
did not so much indicate the unanimity of sentiment on the 
merits of the case as it did the disinclination of the members 
to take up the subject at this time. 

Altogether, the session of the conference had been har¬ 
monious, and the members returned to their homes and their 
tasks with strong faith and large hopes for the future work of 
the Church. 


General Conference of 1861. 

The thirteenth General Conference met at Westerville, 
Ohio, May 13, 1861. Bishops Glossbrenner, Edwards, Davis, 
and Russel were present and presided. The annual conferences, 
were represented as follows: Allegheny, J. B. Ressler, I. Potter, 
W. B. Dick; Auglaize, W. Miller, J. Wilkison; Canada, George 
Plowman, A. B. Sherk, I. Sloane; Des Moines, Joseph Hopkins, 
Abner Corbin, A. A. Sellers; East Pennsylvania, John Stamm, 
Joseph Young, David Strickler; Erie, C. Carter, J. Carter, 
A. Brazee; German, J. Scholler, S. Vonnieda, H. Kumler; 
Illinois, Joshua Dunham, M. Ambrose, Isaac Kretzinger; 
Indiana, L. S. Chittenden, Daniel Shuck, J. Schammahorn; 
Iowa, Martin Bowman, John Goodin, W. W. Richardson; 
Kansas, Josiah Terrel, John Gingerich, W. A. Cardwell; 
Lower Wabash, S. C. Stewart, J. P. Shuey, W. C. Smith; 
Miami, William Davis, D. K. Flickinger, W. J. Shuey; Michi¬ 
gan, John Martin, G. C. Fox, W. S. Titus; Minnesota, J. W. 
Fulkerson, Edmund Clow, John Haney; Missouri, M. Michael, 
W. Wade, W. H. Burns; Muskingum, J. Weaver, J. R. Shepler, 
A. Collins; Nebraska, J. M. Dosh; Parkersburg, Jacob Bachtel, 
J. W. Perry, Z. Warner; Pennsylvania, J. Dickson, W. B. 
Raber, J. C. Smith; Rock River, Sullivan Healy, Morris Roe, 


450 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


J. Hiestand; St. Joseph, E. H. Lamb, J. S. Todd, J. M. Her- 
shey; Scioto, J. M. Spangler, B. Gillespie, J. Montgomery; 
Upper Wabash, James Griffith, Thomas W. Hamilton, C. 
Brock; Virginia, J. Markwood, W. R. Coursey, G. W. Statton; 
White River, John T. Vardaman, Amos Hanway, David 
O'Farr el; Wisconsin, G. G. Nickey, S. L. Eldred, C. Collins. 
The address of the Bishops showed that there had been pros¬ 
perity and commendable progress throughout the quadrennium. 
The number of members was now 94,453, a gain of 33,055. 
The mission conferences generally, some of which seemed such 
doubtful experiments, had made encouraging growth, and 
some of the old conferences made most commendable progress. 

Old Questions Brought Forward. 

The irrepressible subjects in this period, lay delegation, 
and pro rata representation, again forced their way to the 
front, but the conference did not regard either as strongly 
demanded by the Church, and a considerable proportion of 
the conference was decidedly opposed to both. The subject 
of secret societies had come to a pivotal point. Either the law 
of the Church must be enforced or it would break down. To 
make sure of the enforcement of the law, it was prescribed 
that violators of the same should “be dealt with as in the case 
of other immorality/' Only three members voted against this 
measure, Michael of Missouri conference, and Warner and 
Perry of Parkersburg conference. The vote was ominously 
unanimous. It was the lull before the storm. 

The new conferences named at this session were the 
Western Reserve (formed from the Erie), the North Michigan, 
the Indiana German, the Fox River, the West Des Moines, the 
California, the North Iowa. Some missionary work had been 
done in Massachusetts, and the conference ventured to author¬ 
ize a Massachusetts conference, the same being organized in 
1862. The previous division of the Wabash into the Upper 
and Lower Wabash was approved as regular. 

The elections resulted as follows: Bishops, J. J. Gloss- 
brenner, D. Edwards, J. Markwood; Bishop for the Pacific 
coast, J. Weaver, on whose resignation D. Shuck was elected; 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


451 


German Bishop, H. Kumler, Jr.; editor of the Religious 
Telescope, J. Lawrence; publishing agent, T. N. Sowers; editor 
of the German paper, S. Vonnieda; missionary secretary, 
D. K. Flickinger; missionary treasurer, J. Kemp. 

Bishops Daniel Shuck and Jacob Markwood. 

We now turn our attention to Daniel Shuck, the newly 
elected Bishop of the newly constituted Pacific Coast district. 
He was born January 16, 1827, in Harrison county, Indiana. 
His parents were devout Christians, his father being a Lutheran 
and his mother, a sister of Rev. John Lopp, being connected 
early with the United Brethren Church. His mother died 
when he was quite young. His school advantages were limited 
to a few terms in the crude public schools as they existed then. 
He was brought up to hard work on the farm and in the house. 
His father married again after the death of his mother, and in 
all there were fourteen children in the family. In his fifteenth 
year, he was converted and joined the United Brethren Church. 
When seventeen years of age, he became a member of Indiana 
conference. For fifteen years, his work was that of circuit 
preacher and presiding elder, except that in 1845-1846, he, 
against the advice of some of the Church leaders, studied in 
the University of Indiana. His ministerial work took him all 
over the Indiana conference district, including the territory 
occupied in Kentucky. He was interested in promoting the 
infant missionary and educational work of the Church. In 
1858, he was sent by the Missionary Board to Missouri, where 
his work was that of a missionary and circuit preacher. When, 
in 1861, he was elected Pacific Coast Bishop, he shrank from 
the responsibility, but accepted the office because of the 
missionary character of the service that he would be permitted 
to render. Because of hindrances, due to the Civil War, he 
was unable to reach his field before 1864. He went by way of 
Aspinwall and Panama. He did not attend the General 
Conference in 1865 because of the short time he had been on 
his district. At this conference, he was reelected Bishop for 
the Pacific coast. For the time of his service as Bishop, his 
home was in California. March 11, 1847, he was married to 


452 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Miss H. B. Cannady, who was his faithful companion and 
helper in all his travels and sojourns. 

When Bishop Shuck reached California, he found the 
workers and members there much discouraged because of the 
death of Israel Sloane by accident the previous year. Sloane 
was an ideal missionary, and, from 1858, working under the 
Board of Missions, had charge of the missionary work in Cali¬ 
fornia. The central places for the field occupied were the regions 
about Sacramento, and Humbolt county, three hundred miles 
to the north. In California first, and then in Oregon, and later 
in Washington, Bishop Shuck was missionary, circuit preacher, 
presiding elder, and Bishop all together or one after another. 
He took great delight in camp-meetings and evangelistic work 
in general, but he did not forget the scattered churches here 
and there. On their return in a carriage from one of their 
long journeys, he and his wife were stopped by highwaymen 
and robbed of their money and the contents of their trunks and 
valises. With all of his work in traveling and preaching, by 
reading and study he maintained the alertness of his mind and 
his acquaintance with the conditions and events of the times. 
The Bible always was his main book. Under his inspiration 
and leadership, the work on the Coast took on new life and 
became more settled and permanent in character. After his 
second term as Bishop expired, he again took up regular 
itinerant work in the Indiana conference, which he represented 
in the General Conferences of 1873 and 1877. He afterward 
returned to the work in the California conference, and was a 
delegate from that conference to the General Conferences of 
1881, 1885, and 1889. Beginning with 1853, he was a member 
of the General Conference continuously for forty years, though 
while Bishop he missed attendance at the General Conference 
of 1865. Every general interest of the Church received his 
loyal support. As a missionary in Missouri, he stood bravely 
against the institution of slavery, and throughout his whole 
course he stood for the position of the Church against secret 
societies. But when, through the action of the General Con¬ 
ference and the vote of the Church, the Constitution and the 
rule of the Church were changed, he remained with the Church. 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


453 


After 1887, his active labors in the ministry, were interrupted, 
largely on account of the temporary failure of his voice. But 
the difficulty becoming somewhat removed, he continued to 
preach as he was able to the time of his death, which occurred 
November 2, 1900. His body rests in the little cemetery at 
Woodbridge, California. 

Bishop Shuck was the least known throughout the Church 
in general of all the recent Bishops, but he would have honored 
the Bishop's office anywhere. He was a student, an able 
preacher, and a wise and inspiring administrator. No one 
has preached Christ more and himself less than did Bishop 
Daniel Shuck. 

Jacob Markwood, who at this conference was elected 
Bishop for his first term, was born December 26, 1815, near 
Charleston, West Virginia. His mother was a woman of 
superior character and attainments. She was a member of 
the Presbyterian church, and sought to give her family of five 
sons and three daughters a careful home training. The father, 
while not a professed Christian, was an upright man, though 
occasionally giving way to drink, and placed no obstacle in 
the way of the good intentions of the mother. He was a mason 
by trade, and frequently changed his residence in order better 
to secure employment and meet the needs of his family. Jacob 
and a twin brother, Conrad, were the youngest of the children. 
Both father and mother were blind for a number of years 
before their death. The mother died in 1838, and the father 
in 1871, lacking but six months of being one hundred years 
old. All the children were converted, and filled honorable 
and useful places in the Church and in the community. The 
younger children had only ten or twelve months of schooling. 
After reaching the age of fifteen, Jacob was employed variously 
here and there for several years, but later he was given employ¬ 
ment by two of his brothers, who were operating a woolen 
factory on Green Spring River, in Frederick county, Virginia. 
Here he learned the weaver's trade. At Green Spring, he 
became acquainted with the United Brethren, and in 1836 
joined the United Brethren Church. A number of years 
earlier, at the age of seventeen, he was converted. He began 


454 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


at once earnestly to study the Bible, committing large parts 
to memory. His studies took a wide range, and were thorough 
and critical in character. His memory carried whatever was 
entrusted to it. He became a member of the Virginia confer¬ 
ence in 1838. In that year, he was sent as the junior preacher 
to Hagerstown circuit, where doubtless he had a number of 
good fathers and mothers in Israel to encourage him. After 
two years on this circuit, he was sent to South Branch circuit, 
the “brush college" of the Virginia conference, where he re¬ 
mained two years. The next eighteen years were spent as 
presiding elder, in which time he also did some work for the 
missionary society. In these eighteen years, his great work 
was done. While willing to perform any tasks and to suffer 
any hardships, he made the pulpit his throne, from which he 
swayed the hearts and molded the lives of the people. Now 
dealing with stricken hearts with tenderest affection, and then 
turning his scathing rebuke and withering invective against 
all wickedness and sham, he met every condition before him 
with most telling effect. Language and figures were his play¬ 
things or his thunderbolts according to his purpose. With his 
fearless, headlong disposition, the wonder is that he kept so 
surely and steadily in the line of healthful occupation and 
unmarred usefulness. But his real humility and devotion to 
his Master were his unfailing security. 

In the Bishop's office, by his personal contact and his 
electrifying messages from the pulpit, he created enthusiasm 
wherever he went, and imparted new vigor in the work of the 
Church. But, alas! the inevitable result of living and working 
under such high tension appeared, first in the interruption and 
then in the premature ending of his work. Although showing 
unmistakable signs of broken health, he was reelected Bishop 
in 1869, but the work of his district devolved largely on others. 
Some one has said: “He drove the coursers of his chariot with 
loosened reins and stinging lash. In everything he did, he 
kept life’s engine running at its utmost speed." When re¬ 
monstrated with because of his intensity, his answer was, “Yes, 
you are right, but I cannot help it." After a long period of 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


455 


suffering, he died January 22, 1873. His body lies buried in 
the cemetery near Luray, Virginia. 

General Conference of 1865. 

The fourteenth General Conference met May 11, 1865, 
at Western, Linn county, Iowa. Bishops Glossbrenner, Ed¬ 
wards, Kumler, and Markwood were present and presided. 
The annual conferences were represented as follows: Allegheny 
J. B. Ressler, W. B. Dick, G. Wagoner; Auglaize, W. Miller, 
W. McKee; Canada, S. L. Downey, G. Plowman; East Des 
Moines, N. H. Mitchell, S. P. Newland; West Des Moines, 
J. Hopkins, R. Loggan; Fox River, E. Collins, A. B. Doolittle, 

R. Powell; East Pennsylvania, G. A. Mark, Jr., D. Strickler, 
J. B. Dougherty; Erie, W. Cadman, J. Hill; Illinois, M. Am¬ 
brose, I. Kretzinger, J. C. Ross; Indiana, J. Schammahorn, 
H. Haskins; Indiana German, J. Roth; Iowa, J. Goodin, J. 
Medlar, W. M. Stiles; Kansas, S. Kretzinger, J. Terrel; Lower 
Wabash, S. Mills, W. C. Smith, H. Elwell; Miami, W. J. Shuey, 
J. Walter, D. K. Flickinger; Michigan, I. M. Martin, J. Thomas, 
J. K. Alwood; Minnesota, M. L. Tibbetts, Volney Jones; 
Muskingum, J. Weaver, A. Collins, C. Wortman; Ohio German, 

S. Vonnieda, J. Scholler, J. A. Sand; Parkersburg, Z. Warner, 
J. Bach tel; Pennsylvania, J. Dickson, W. B. Raber, J. C. 
Smith; Rock River, James Johnson, A. V. Dodd; Sandusky, 
J. C. Bright, S. Lindsay, A. Biddle; St. Joseph, J. M. Hershey, 
H. A. Snep; Scioto, J. M. Spangler, J. Montgomery, William 
Fisher; Upper Wabash, J. Kenoyer, T. M. Hamilton; White 
River, M. Wright, C. W. Witt, J. T. Vardaman; Virginia, 
G. W. Statton, W. R. Coursey, G. Rimel; Wisconsin, G. G. 
Nickey, J. Payne, S. C. Zuck. 

The previous session of the General Conference was held 
at Westerville, the seat of Otterbein University, and this 
session was held at the seat of Western College, founded in 
1857. These places were selected because they were important 
centers for wide church areas. Besides, the strong local con¬ 
gregations were able to furnish the necessary entertainment. 
A disadvantage in connection with Western was that some of 


456 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the delegates had to walk the eight miles between Cedar Rapids 
and the town of Western. 

Effects of the War. 

The session came at the close of the Civil War. Virginia 
with Maryland, the slave territory in which the Church 
principally operated, was the scene of many battles and cam¬ 
paigns. The Federal and Confederate lines moved back and 
forth through the territory of Virginia conference. For three 
years, separate conferences were held north and south of the 
changing belligerent lines. Homes were destroyed and lands 
were made desolate. Hostility and suspicion divided the 
people. At the close of the war, Bishop Markwood said, 
" There is no United Brethren Church in Virginia.” In the 
North, the intense loyalty of the body of the Church drove 
from it some whose sympathy was on the other side. Like¬ 
wise, besides unavoidable losses and disturbances through the 
war, the diversion of interest and energy reduced the results 
of the work of the Church. Thus, the statistics, imperfectly 
gathered, showed a net loss in membership during the quadren- 
nium of 4,642, the total membership being given as 89,811. 
During the war, Bishop Glossbrenner had been shut up in 
the South, save that he once was permitted to pass through 
the lines and return. Bishop Markwood’s fiery utterances 
against treason and rebellion had made it unsafe for him to 
live in his home State. When, in the first days of the session 
of the General Conference, news came of the capture of Jeffer¬ 
son Davis and his staff, the members of the Conference joined 
in singing "Praise God, from whom all blessings flow.” 

Sunday School Department. 

In 1865, in addition to the publishing and missionary 
departments already existing, there was added what might be 
called a Sunday-school department. An organization with a 
constitution, called the "Sabbath School Association of the 
United Brethren Church,” was launched. Isaac Crouse, of 
the Sandusky conference, was made general secretary, which 
office he continued to hold for twelve years. Before this time 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


457 


Sunday schools had been carried on without a general plan 
and without the results that should have been attained. 

J. J. Glossbrenner, D. Edwards, and J. Markwood were 
reelected Bishops. Jonathan Weaver was elected Bishop for 
his first term. At the previous session he had been elected 
Pacific Coast Bishop, but resigned. The other officers elected 
were as follows: Agents of the Printing Establishment, W. J. 
Shuey and T. N. Sowers; editor of the Religious Telescope, 
D. Berger; editor of the German paper and Children's Friend, 
S. Vonnieda; missionary secretary, D. K. Flickinger; mission¬ 
ary treasurer, William McKee. The General Conference 
authorized one new annual conference, the Central Illinois, by 
division of the Illinois conference. The Cascade was named 
as a mission conference in 1861, but became such actually in 
1865. The General Conference made certain changes that 
eliminated the Indiana German mission conference as a confer¬ 
ence, its territory passing to the Ohio German Conference. 

Bishop J. Weaver. 

Jonathan Weaver, the newly elected Bishop, was born in 
Carroll county, Ohio, February 23, 1824, the youngest of 
twelve children. His parents were of German descent. The 
family moved from Washington county, Pennsylvania, to 
Ohio, about 1810. This was the day of opening up farms in the 
forest, round logs for cabins and schoolhouses, narrow paths 
for roads, and of the itinerant preacher coming on horseback 
at long intervals, everything being almost as primitive as the 
forest itself. The Weaver children had the opportunity of 
three months a year in schools of the most inferior sort. Later, 
Jonathan had the advantage of studying in Hagerstown 
Academy for five months. He never was at a religious meeting 
on Sunday until he was fourteen years old. Occasionally he 
had heard preaching in cabins on a week evening. When 
seventeen, he received permission to attend a camp-meeting 
at Conotton, just across the county line, in Harrison county. 
A. Biddle, the presiding elder, had the meeting in charge, and 
John E. McGaw was the circuit preacher. The camp-meeting 


458 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


was on the land of Joseph Naftzgar, at whose house the Mus¬ 
kingum conference was organized in 1818. Scarcely knowing 
why, young Weaver went to the mourner's bench at the first 
invitation. He joined the church, but was not converted 
until a number of months later. He attended a protracted 
meeting in a cabin and went forward to the mourners' bench 
seventeen times, and yet did not have the confidence to call 
himself a Christian until at a prayer-meeting in the cabin of 
a neighbor he came into an assured experience of his salvation. 
His parents and most of his brothers and sisters were con¬ 
verted soon afterward and became members of the Church. 
An older brother, Solomon, preceded him into the ministry and 
was a successful preacher for many years. He became the 
first president of Western College, in Iowa, and of Lane Uni¬ 
versity, in Kansas. Jonathan became a class-leader at nine¬ 
teen, and at twenty received license to exhort, and a little later 
license to preach. When he applied to the quarterly conference 
for license to preach, the members of the conference were 
equally divided as to granting him a license. A. Biddle, the 
presiding elder, after asking him a few questions, gave the 
deciding vote in his favor. He was appointed by the presiding 
elder to serve for a time, along with his brother Solomon, on 
the New Lisbon circuit. In 1846, he taught a term of school, 
and the rest of the year worked on a farm. In 1847, he united 
with Muskingum conference, and in the following year he 
was ordained by Bishop Glossbrenner. His first charge was 
Lake Erie mission. The mission was two hundred miles 
around, and it required four days of hard riding on horseback 
to reach it. He served six years as itinerant preacher on 
missions, circuits, and stations, four years as presiding elder, 
and eight years as soliciting agent for Otterbein University. 
He was married in 1847 to Miss Keziah Robb, who died five 
years later. In 1854, he was married to Miss Mary Forsyth. 
His election as Pacific Coast Bishop in 1861, which he did not 
accept, and his election as Bishop in 1865, show how rapidly, 
from humble beginnings and with little advantage from 
schools, he had advanced in the confidence and esteem of the 
Church. 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


459 


Lest some persons might think that they can become 
Bishop Weavers spontaneously, without help and effort, it may 
be well to take account of his own judgment, expressed near 
the close of his long career. To the question, “What is your 
advice to young men touching preparation for the ministry?” 
his answer was, “Educate, if possible, in both college and 
seminary.” He always deplored his want of early advantages, 
and struggled hard in every way to make up for the absence 
of them. He preached to the trees. He wrote on various 
subjects just for practice. He procured books and read 
greedily on theological and miscellaneous subjects. He drew 
from others about him and learned from passing events. With 
his ability to adapt and capacity to assimilate, and, withal, his 
courage of adventure, it is not strange that he succeeded. But 
other explanations would be vain without a notice of the lure 
and urge of a divine call, accompanied by a passion for the 
salvation of men. 

Bishop Weaver was six feet four and a half inches in height, 
always somewhat lean-looking in body and face, but a man of 
great vigor and power of endurance. He was a man of com¬ 
plete self-command, which readily was extended to a com¬ 
manding influence over others. 

The substance of Bishop Weaver’s sermons was thoroughly 
biblical, his style simplicity itself, and his aim always prac¬ 
tical. He did not imitate others, and it would be folly for 
others to try to imitate him. Plis power was largely personal. 
Persons seated near him as he addressed large audiences have 
remarked that his soul seemed to act like a great battery. 
Occasions at times called him into the field of debate. He 
took part in eight formal debates, always in response to a 
challenge. Three of these debates were on the subject of 
baptism, his position always being in defense of the liberal 
position held by the United Brethren Church as to the design, 
mode, and subjects of baptism. One of his debates, in pre-war 
times, was on the subject of slavery. Four of his debates were 
on the subject of Universalism. The most notable of these 
was with Rev. Josiah Davis, who for many years had been a 
prominent minister of the United Brethren Church. Mr. 


460 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Davis was an acute and practiced debater, but was practically 
borne to the ground or borne from the field by the arguments 
and personal force of Bishop Weaver. Bishop Weaver closed 
his last speech with an exhortation that would have befitted 
a camp-meeting: “God is good, but he is also just. I cannot 
promise you eternal life according to Universalism, but, if 
you obey the gospel, thank God, you shall live forever. The 
city of God is open to you now. And when death-drops stand 
on your marble brow you may say, ‘Light breaks in/ and you 
shall hail the moving millions who like a cloud of glory encircle 
the great white throne.” Although he had a “lust” for de¬ 
bate, he gloried much more in the great truths that Christians 
hold in common. The ability and wisdom with which he 
conducted the business of the conferences were generally 
recognized and appreciated. In his period of twenty-eight 
years as Bishop, he saw nearly all of the departments of the 
Church established. He said that he was not always the 
leader, but he tried to be in the front rank. 

Perhaps Bishop Weaver always quite specially will be 
remembered because of his relation to the position of the 
Church on secret societies. At the first, he stood with the 
great majority of the Church in opposition to secret societies. 
But almost constantly ministers and lay members were found 
to be in connection with some secret society. The minister 
that took Bishop Weaver into the Church was proceeded 
against because of his connection with the Freemasons. Bishop 
Weaver wrote and lectured against secret societies. His own 
course was so much the course of the Church that the votes in 
the General Conference on this subject may be given here, 
even though they may seem out of place. The first extended 
discussion of the subject was in the General Conference of 1849. 
On a test vote, the strict law against secret societies was 
sustained by thirty-three in favor, with two voting against, 
and two standing neutral; in 1857, forty-six were for a strict law, 
and five were liberal; in 1861, sixty-nine were on the law side, 
and four on the liberal side; in 1869, seventy-two were on the 
law side, and twenty-five were liberal; in 1878, eighty-two 
were on the law side, and twenty-two were liberal; in 1881, 


PERIOD FROM 1841 TO 1865 


461 


the two sides were so nearly equal that neither side cared to 
have a roll call. In general, at every test, the proposition 
was to make the law stricter, so as to resist a rising tide of 
dissatisfaction and encroachment. In the test votes named, 
Bishop Weaver always voted with the majority. But no one 
knew the situation in the Church better than he. No one 
was more concerned for the future of the Church than he, and 
yet for him a change of view or attitude as to the Church law 
was by no means easy. But, after all, the change that he saw 
as inevitable was not so much a change in him as it was a 
change in conditions, both social and religious. In the Re¬ 
ligious Telescope, he published some articles indicating that 
some modification of the Church law was necessary. To 
these articles, vigorous replies were made. August 22, 1883, 
appeared his epoch-making article under the title, “The Out¬ 
look/' This article was written and rewritten, was laid away 
for six months, was then read to a trusted friend, a leading 
minister, who said the article contained the truth and was 
what the Church ought to have, but advised him not to pub¬ 
lish it, for, he said, “It will kill you/' Bishop Weaver replied, 
“The question with me is not what its effect may be upon 
myself; the least interests of the Church are far above all 
personal considerations." The outcome foreshadowed by 
Bishop Weaver's “Outlook" article will receive notice as we 
come to consider the General Conferences of 1885 and 1889. 

Bishop Weaver was a constant contributor to the columns 
of the Religious Telescope. His articles always were timely, 
well-spiced, and readable. His published books were under 
the titles, “Discourses on the Resurrection," “Ministerial 
Salary," “The Doctrine of Universal Salvation Carefully 
Examined," “Divine Providence," “Heaven," and “The Con¬ 
fession of Faith." He also edited a volume on “ Christian Doc¬ 
trine." His books were popular in character and reached 
a good circulation. 

In the twenty-eight years of Bishop Weaver's active 
service as Bishop, his labors extended to every part of the 
Church. In the eight years following the General Conference 
of 1893, when he was made Bishop emeritus, he was interested 


462 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


in every movement in the Church, and participated as he was 
able. His strength gradually failed. His death occurred 
February 6, 1901. Among his last words were, these: “I shall 
see the King in his beauty. I feel perfectly safe.” Funeral 
services were held in Oak Street church, Dayton, participated 
in by Bishops and other leading ministers of the Church. In a 
short address by Bishop Hott, his first words were, "The pil¬ 
grim of a thousand journeys is at rest.” His body sleeps in 
Woodland cemetery. 


CHAPTER XI. 


PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881 


General Conference of 1869—Theological Education—Rule on Secret 
Societies—The African Mission—Bishop Dickson—General Confer¬ 
ence of 1873—Proposed Centennial—Old Questions—General Con¬ 
ference of 1877—Climax in Struggle over Secret Societies— 

Milton Wright and Nicholas Castle Bishops—General 
Conference of 1881—Pro Rata Representation 
Enacted—Deadlock on Secret Society Legisla¬ 
tion—Bishop E. B. Kephart 


General Conference of 1869. 



HE fifteenth General Conference met in Lebanon, 


Pennsylvania, May 20, 1869. All of the Bishops of 


the Church were present, Glossbrenner, Edwards, 
Weaver, Shuck, and Markv/ood. The last named 
however, was in a completely broken-down condition, and with 
difficulty addressed the conference briefly on two or three 
occasions. The representation of the annual conferences was 
as follows: Allegheny, D. Speck, W. B. Dick, D. Sheerer; 
Auglaize, W. Miller, J. Wilkison, H. S. Thomas; Canada, 
G. Plowman, A. B. Sherk, H. Kropp; East Des Moines, R. 
Thrasher, L. S. Grove, W. S. Demoss; West Des Moines, 

R. Logan, W. Jacobs; Erie, J. Hill, W. Cadman, S. A. Snyder; 
Indiana, J. Breden, J. Schammahorn, I. K. Haskins; Illinois, 
0. F. Smith, I. Kretzinger, N. A. Walker; Illinois Central, 
A. L. Best, J. C. Ross, M. Ambrose; Iowa, E. S. Bunce, H. B. 
Potter, M. Bowman; North Iowa, G. H. Watrous, M. S. 
Drury, W. W. Richardson; Kansas, B. F. Lewis, H. M. Greene, 

S. Kretzinger; Miami, W. J. Shuey, D. K. Flickinger, H. Garst; 
Muskingum, C. Wortman, J. N. Lemasters, J. W. Anderson; 
Michigan, J. N. Martin, J. K. Alwood, J. Thomas; North 
Michigan, G. S. Lake, H. T. Barnaby, W. S. Titus; Minnesota, 
M. L. Tibbets, I. L. Buchwalter; Missouri, H. Siemiller; Ohio 
German, G. Fritz, J. Scholler, W. Mittendorf; Pennsylvania, 
J. Dickson, J. M. Bishop, W. B. Raber; East Pennsylvania, 


463 


464 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


E. Light, G. A. Mark, D. Hoffman; Parkersburg, Z. Warner, 
J. W. Perry, S. J. Graham; Rock River, I. K. Statton, T. F. 
Hallowell, Parker Hurless; Sandusky, A. Rose, S. Lindsay, 
M. Bulger; St. Joseph, N. Castle, J. M. Hershey, H. A. Snep; 
Scioto, L. Davis, W. Fisher, J. Montgomery; Tennessee, D. 
Beauchamp; Virginia, G. W. Statton, J. W. Howe, J. W. Hott; 
White River, J. T. Vardaman, M. Wright, T. Evans; Upper 
Wabash, J. A. Kenoyer, J. Griffith, J. Cowgill; Lower Wabash, 
W. C. Smith, S. Mills, L. S. Chittenden; Western Reserve, 
W. H. Miller, J. G. Baldwin, A. Brazee; Wisconsin, G. G. 
Nickey, S. Sutton. 

The conference in coming to Lebanon, Pennsylvania, 
came near swinging from farthest west to farthest east, as 
the former session was held at Western, Iowa. No General 
Conference had been held in Pennsylvania since those held 
at Mount Pleasant, in 1815 and 1817. The report in the 
Bishops' address showed a church membership of 108,122, a 
gain of 18,311 during the quadrennium. A number of minor 
changes were made. Instead of retaining in the Discipline 
the statement of a fixed salary for itinerant preachers, the 
fixing of the salary was left to the preacher and the quarterly 
conference. The prohibitory rule against choirs and instru¬ 
mental music was changed to advisory. A stipulated propor¬ 
tion of the money collected by the annual conferences was 
ordered paid to the parent missionary society. Lay representa¬ 
tion was defeated by a vote of fifty-five against to thirty-two 
for, on the ground that there was no general desire for the 
same. A church erection society was provided for, but at 
the time it was not so much an organization as an idea put 
into the care of the missionary society to be nurtured and de¬ 
veloped. 

Provision was made for a German conference in the East, 
to be known as the East German conference, and for a new 
conference in parts of Kansas and Missouri, to be known as 
Osage conference, and for the Tennessee conference. It is 
difficult to give exact dates for some of the mission conferences, 
as at times conferences were constituted and likewise unmade 
by the Mission Board. 


PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881 


465 


The election resulted as follows: Bishops, J. J. Gloss- 
brenner, D. Edwards, J. Weaver, and J. Dickson, the last 
named being elected for the first time; publishing agent, W. J. 
Shuey; editor of the Religious Telescope, M. Wright, D. Berger 
afterward being appointed assistant editor; missionary secre¬ 
tary, D. K. Flickinger; missionary treasurer, William McKee. 
The Publishing House board was to appoint the editor for the 
German paper. 


Theological Seminary. 

The committee on education brought in a report in which 
a measure of theological education or ministerial preparation 
in connection with the colleges was recommended. But the 
report as finally adopted provided for a board of education, 
with instructions to work out plans for founding a special 
school to accomplish the purpose named. Thus was laid the 
foundation for Union Biblical Seminary. 

Secret Societies. 

The subject of greatest interest before the conference 
was the action to be taken in relation to secret societies. 
The proposed law was not essentially new, but it looked 
toward a continued and even more rigid carrying out of the 
provisions formerly in force with reference to all secret socie¬ 
ties. The debate, which ran through three full days, was 
earnest and able, and characterized in the main with courtesy 
and forbearance as between brethren. More truly than any 
test previously made, the vote showed the actual drift of senti¬ 
ment, and the relative strength at this time of the opposing 
parties. The conference stood in favor of a strict prohibitive 
law by a vote of seventy-one to twenty-six. The minority 
sought to make the law advisory. 

The African Mission. 

The time when the General Conference met was the 
darkest hour for the African mission. Rev. 0. Hadley, who 
with his wife had just returned from Africa, died within a 
week after his reaching home from sickness contracted in Africa, 


466 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


or there hastened in its fatal action. Money to maintain the 
work was difficult to get, and suitable missionaries were even 
more difficult to secure. The Board of Missions not being 
able to reach a conclusion, the matter was taken to the General 
Conference. After most serious consideration, it was decided 
that the mission should be maintained. This proved most 
fortunate, for money came in in larger amounts, and the 
suitable missionaries were found. It also was decided by the 
General Conference that the Board of Missions should look 
toward the establishing of a mission in Germany. 

Bishop Dickson. 

John Dickson, twenty-four years a Bishop in the Church, 
was first elected in 1869. He was born near Chambersburg, 
Pennsylvania, June 15, 1820. His ancestry on his father's 
side was Scotch-Irish, and, on his mother's side, English. His 
childhood was that usual to children brought up on a farm in 
that early day—a simple life, short terms in inferior schools, 
and work for all with their increasing years. He preferred 
other things to books and school until their practical advantage 
became evident to him. When he was in his nineteenth 
year, his parents moved to Knox county, Illinois, and in the 
spring of the following year he entered an academy in Gales¬ 
burg, but, being seized with the “Illinois shakes," he returned 
to his home, and the next spring returned to Pennsylvania. 
He had taught school, and again took up this work. He was 
given much to the social diversions of the times, but became 
thoroughly awakened in a protracted meeting in the “old red 
schoolhouse," conducted by Rev. J. C. Smith, in November, 
1843, at which time he was converted and united with the 
Church. J. C. Smith, then a young man, and at no time a 
great preacher, was one of the most useful preachers of his 
time. He always commanded the highest respect. W. B. 
Raber, a teacher in an academy, and afterward a prominent 
minister, was converted under his ministry, and others of 
prominence in their communities likewise were led to Christ 
by him. The young school teacher soon was called to take a 
public part in religious meetings, and soon was given license 


PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881 


467 


to exhort, and then quarterly conference license to preach, and 
in 1847 became a member of Pennsylvania conference. He 
was very successful as an itinerant minister on circuits and 
stations, and as a presiding elder up to the time of his being 
elected Bishop in 1869. In 1861, 1865, and 1869 he was a 
delegate to the General Conference. He contributed many 
articles to the Religious Telescope. He had a good command 
of simple, idiomatic English, and his contributions always were 
interesting, practical, and forceful. He was considered for 
important offices in the Church, but, his physical constitution 
never being robust, he preferred the pastorate as being less 
confining. His long life and extended service in the Church 
were an evidence of the prudence that he always exercised. 
He was married November 14, 1848, to Miss Mary Jane Adair. 

Bishop Dickson was a model expository preacher. If he 
did not so often preach the great sermon, he very seldom 
preached a poor one. At conferences and meetings of various 
kinds, where the people were tired from the engagements of 
the day, or feeling the reaction following high excitement, when 
the great preacher would despair of success, Bishop Dickson 
always was able to hold attention and edify. His attention 
to particulars and his methodical habits made him efficient 
as an administrator. In his earlier ministry, he showed much 
independence, was something of a free lance, but later he 
became more conservative. 

Some of the time while serving as Bishop he located v/ith 
his family on the district assigned him. His first location on 
a district was at Muscatine, Iowa. In the later period of his 
life, his home was at Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. 

When the appointing of the Church Commission to under¬ 
take the revision of the Confession of Faith and the Constitu¬ 
tion was proposed, Bishop Dickson could not conscientiously 
support the same, but, when all of the steps had been taken 
and the General Conference in 1889 pronounced the revised 
Confession and Constitution regularly adopted, he remained 
with the Church. Perhaps, with his pen and his personal 
influence in other ways, he did more than any other one person 


468 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


to hold to the Church a considerable part of the membership 
that was conservatively inclined. 

From the time of Mr. Dickson's retirement as Bishop in 
1893, he continued to preach, write, and work as he was able. 
He died February 22, 1907, in his eighty-seventh year. 

General Conference of 1873. 

The sixteenth General Conference convened at Dayton, 
Ohio, May 15, 1873. All of the Bishops were present—Gloss- 
brenner, Edwards, Weaver, and Dickson. The following is 
the list of delegates according to the annual conferences repre¬ 
sented: Allegheny, D. Speck, G. Wagoner, M. P. Doyle; 
Auglaize, W. Miller, W. E. Bay, J. Wilkison; California, E. H. 
Curtis, A. Musselman, J. W. Harrow; Canada, D. B. Sherk, 

G. Plowman, A. B. Sherk; Central Illinois, M. Ambrose, A. L. 
Best, S. P. Hoy; Colorado, St. Clair Ross; East Des Moines, 

A. Schwimley, M. S. Favour, R. Thrasher; East German, J. 
Runk, H. H. Gelbach, D. Hoffman; East Pennsylvania, L. 
Peters, E. Light, G. W. M. Rigor; Erie, J. Hill, N. R. Luce, 

L. L. Hager; Fox River, G. E. Upton, N. G. Whitney, W. C. 
Bacon; Illinois, I. Kretzinger, 0. F. Smith, N. A. Walker; 
Indiana, J. Schammahorn, D. Shuck, J. Breeden; Iowa, 

M. Bowman, J. H. Vandever, E. S. Bunce; Kansas, H. M. 
Greene, H. D. Healey, S. B. McGrew; Lower Wabash, W. C. 
Smith, S. Mills, J. W. Nye; Miami, W. McKee, W. Dillon, 

H. Garst; Michigan, H. T. Barnaby, J. Carter, B. Hamp; 
Minnesota, M. L. Tibbetts, J. T. Allaman, J. Stiner; Missouri, 

N. E. Gardner, W. Beauchamp, W. T. Tritch; Muskingum, 

B. F. Booth, J. M. Poulton, J. N. Lemasters; North Iowa, 

M. S. Drury, E. Fothergill, G. Watrous; North Ohio, J. K. 
Alwood, J. N. Martin, T. Osmun; Ohio German, G. Fritz, 
W. Mittendorf, J. Scholler; Oregon, T. J. Connor, J. Harritt, 

N. W. Allen; Osage, D. Wenrich, J. R. Evans, J. S. Gingerich; 
Parkersburg, Z. Warner, W. Slaughter, E. Harper; Pennsyl¬ 
vania, Z. A. Colestock, J. C. Smith, J. M. Bishop; Rock River, 
P. Hurless, T. F. Hallowed, I. K. Statton; Sandusky, D. R, 
Miller, A. Rose, M. Bulger; Scioto, L. Davis, W. Fisher, 
B. Gillespie; Southern Illinois, I. A. Williams; St. Joseph, 


PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881 


469 


J. M. Hershey, N. Castle, G. Sickafoose; Tennessee, E. Keezel; 
Upper Wabash, T. M. Hamilton, J. Griffith, J. Cowgill; Vir¬ 
ginia, J. W. Hott, G. W. Statton, J. W. Howe; West Des 
Moines, W. Jacobs, J. M. Dosh, J. E. Ham; Western Reserve, 
W. H. Millar, A. Brazee, J. G. Baldwin; White River, J. T. 
Vardaman, M. Wright, T. Evans; Wisconsin, G. G. Nickey, 
J. J. Vaughn, A. W. Alderman. 

The session was held in St. Paul's Universalist Church, 
which the First United Brethren Church was using while its 
church was being built at a new location. At that time, 
there were five United Brethren churches in Dayton—three 
English, one German, and one Colored, besides a mission. 
Bishop Glossbrenner delivered a sermon at the opening of the 
session. Bishop Edwards had delivered a sermon at the open¬ 
ing of the previous session of the General Conference. Both 
sermons were chiefly exhortations toward unity, love, un¬ 
selfishness, and devotion to the cause of Christ. The delivering 
of opening sermons did not become a custom. The Bishops' 
report showed a church membership of 125,658, a gain of 
17,347. Since the previous General Conference, four mission 
conferences had been organized—Dakota, Southern Illinois, 
Colorado, and Osage. The African mission had great pros¬ 
perity. The mission in Germany was reported as established 
in Bavaria, but as being operated under difficulties. The 
Board of Education, appointed by the Bishops, founded Union 
Biblical Seminary in 1871. A mission in Japan was authorized, 
but was not established until a number of years later. The 
process of adding new mission conferences was halted, and 
Iowa and North Iowa conferences were authorized to unite. 
The conference did the handsome thing in recognizing and 
encouraging the beginning efforts of the women of the Church 
in organizing for supporting and advancing missionary work. 

Centennial Celebration. 

At the previous session of the General Conference, a 
proposition was made by Fathers Spayth, Erb, and Russel, 
representing a United Brethren historical society, that a 
centennial celebration should be held in 1870 commemorating 


470 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


one hundred years of United Brethren history. The matter 
was referred to a committee, which reported to the session of 
1873 that the proper year for such a celebration would be 1874, 
that being the year when Otterbein took charge of an inde¬ 
pendent congregation in Baltimore. The conference ordered 
that centennial services should be held throughout the Church 
in that year, and that a centennial fund should be raised for 
the benefit of the Missionary and Church Erection societies 
and Union Biblical Seminary. 

Old Questions. 

The three irrepressible subjects, secret societies, lay 
delegation, and pro rata representation, again occupied a 
prominent place. On the proposition that the secrecy law 
remain as it was, eighty-two voted affirmatively and twenty- 
two voted negatively. The vote was not strictly an indication 
of sentiment, as some voted for the law rather than to have 
something more objectionable to them adopted. In reference 
to the method of enforcement, seventy cast their votes in favor 
of a special order of procedure in cases of violation of the 
secrecy law, and thirty voted in the negative. 

For the first time, lay representation on its own merits 
seemed to have the majority sentiment in its favor, at least 
in favor of the membership having an opportunity to vote on 
its introduction. The lay delegation wanted was lay delega¬ 
tion in the General Conference, and to secure this it was 
necessary to ignore the Constitution or to change the Constitu¬ 
tion. The measure brought forward called for a submitting 
to the membership the following changed form of the Constitu¬ 
tion. ‘'All the ecclesiastical power herein granted to enact 
or repeal any lav/ or rule of discipline is vested in a General 
Conference which shall consist of elders and laymen elected 
in every annual conference district throughout the Church/’ 
This measure was adopted by the surprisingly large vote of 
ninety-one to twelve. A recommendation by another com¬ 
mittee was that, in case the membership should vote to ap¬ 
prove the proposed change in the Constitution, the following 
should be the rule as to the members of the General Confer- 


PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881 


471 


ence: “Each annual conference shall be entitled to three 
elders, also one layman for every two thousand members, and 
one layman for every one thousand and less than two thousand, 
provided that each conference shall have one lay delegate.” 
An amendment was offered to make the number of ministerial 
and lay delegates equal. At this point the contention became 
quite earnest. Not only was lay delegation involved, but 
pro rata representation both for ministers and laymen, and 
fears were aroused as to what might be the bearing and effect 
of all this. Twenty voted for the amendment allowing equal 
representation, and seventy voted against. After a number 
of amendments were offered and voted down, the item as 
reported by the committee was adopted. It would seem, 
therefore, that both lay delegation and pro rata representation 
were well on the way to adoption. But the question still 
remained as to how the language of the Constitution relating 
to amendments should be interpreted, the language being, 
“There shall be no alteration of the foregoing constitution 
unless by request of two-thirds of the whole society.” The 
conference, not being able to agree on an interpretation, re¬ 
ferred the interpretation to the board of Bishops, its report to 
be made later. After full consideration, the Bishops reported 
through the Religious Telescope that they were unable to 
agree. Bishops Glossbrenner and Weaver construed the lan¬ 
guage to mean two-thirds of those voting, and Bishops Edwards 
and Dickson construed the language as meaning two-thirds 
of the entire membership. Lay delegation in the General 
Conference therefore was dead, though lay delegation in the 
annual conferences, remained a possibility. 

The four Bishops serving the previous term were reelected. 
T. J. Connor and W. J. Shuey received very complimentary 
votes for Bishops. W. J. Shuey was reelected publishing agent, 
M. Wright was reelected editor of the Religious Telescope, 
and W. 0. Tobey was elected assistant editor. William 
Mittendorf was elected editor of the German paper. D. K. 
Flickinger was reelected missionary secretary, and J. W. Hott 
was elected missionary treasurer. I. Crouse was reelected 
secretary of the Sabbath school association. 


472 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


General Conference of 1877. 

The seventeenth General Conference met in the chapel 
of Westfield College, Westfield, Illinois, May 10,1877. Bishop 
Edwards had died at his home in Baltimore, June 6, 1876. 
In the course of the session, Bishop Glossbrenner preached an 
appropriate sermon on the life and labors of his fallen associate. 
The conference was presided over by Bishops Glossbrenner, 
Weaver, and Dickson. The annual conferences were repre¬ 
sented as follows: Allegheny, J. Walker, D. Speck, M. P. 
Doyle; Auglaize, William Miller, John L. Luttrell, S. T, 
Mahan; Central Illinois, Isaac Kretzinger, A. L. Best, M. Am¬ 
brose; California, J. L. Field, Alexander Musselman, C. W. 
Gillett; Colorado, William H. McCormick, St. Clair Ross; 
Dakota, I. G. W. Chase, A. K. Curtis, Joseph Cotton; East 
Des Moines, R. Thrasher, A. Schwimley, D. S. Shifflett; East 
German, Jacob Runk, Job Light, J. W. Kunkel; East Pennsyl¬ 
vania, Lewis Peters, G. W. M. Rigor, Isaiah Baltzell; Erie, 
John Hill, L. L. Hager, N. R. Luce; Fox River, N. G. Whitney, 
William C. Bacon, P. F. Gay; Illinois, 0. F. Smith, N. A. 
Walker, A. Worman; Indiana, Daniel Shuck, James M. Fowler, 
John Breden; Iowa, M. Bowman, I. L. Buchwaiter, M. S. 
Drury; Kansas, R. Logan, H. A. Bell, David Shuck; Lower 
Wabash, S. Mills, W. C. Smith, C. H. Jones; Miami, William 
McKee, J. L. Swain, W. Dillon; Michigan, H. T. Barnaby, 
James Carter, J. Payne; Minnesota, M. L. Tibbetts, S. D. 
Kemerer, E. Clow; Missouri, William Beauchamp, A. W. 
Geeslin, J. T. Allaman; Muskingum, B. F. Booth, J. N. Le- 
masters, S. W. Koontz; Nebraska, S. Austin, I. N. Martin; 
North Ohio, J. K. Alwood, Joseph Brown, J. Waldorf; Ohio 
German, William Mittendorf, G. Fritz, J. Scholler; Ontario, 
David B. Sherk, S. E. Carmany; Oregon, P. C. Hetzler; Osage, 
J. S. Gingerich, J. R. Evans; Parkersburg, Z. Warner, S. J. 
Graham, E. Harper; Pennsylvania, Z. A. Colestock, J. H. 
Young, C. T. Stearn; Rock River, Parker Hurless, T. F. Hallo- 
well, J. H. Grimm; Sandusky, Alvan Rose, D. R. Miller, 
M. Bulger; Scioto, L. Davis, J. M. Spangler, J. H. Dickson; 
Southern Illinois, S. G. Brock; St. Joseph, N. Castle, J. M. 
Hershey, George Sickafoose; Upper Wabash, W. N. Coffman, 


PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881 


473 


Joel Cowgill; Virginia, J. W. Hott, J. W. Howe, G. W. Statton; 
West Des Moines, George Miller, J. I. Baber, William Jacobs; 
Western Reserve, John Noel, A. Brazee, J. G. Baldwin; White 
River, Milton Wright, Simon B. Ervin, Halleck Floyd; Wis¬ 
consin, G. G. Nickey, S. L. Eldred. 

The membership at this time numbered 144,881, a gain 
of 19,223. In general, the work of the Church had prospered 
during the quadrennium. At this session, Mrs. D. L. Rike 
read an excellent address on the organization and work of the 
Woman's Missionary association. The conference warmly 
approved the work and purposes of this association. The 
Saginaw conference was formed from the north part of the 
Michigan conference. 

Climax in Struggle over Secret Societies. 

What was said of the “three irrepressible subjects" in 
the account of the preceding General Conference would apply 
to the same subjects as dealt with by the present General 
Conference. The extreme limit in the attempt at rigid en¬ 
forcement of the law against connection with secret societies 
was reached. The debate was long and was attended with 
some harshness and resentment. The vote in favor of strict 
enforcement stood seventy-one to thirty-one. This marked 
the culmination of effort and success in this direction, and from 
this time, both among the ministers and in the laity, a modified 
sentiment became increasingly strong. Pro rata representa¬ 
tion in the General Conference was defeated by fifty-four to 
forty-five votes. Provision was made for the receiving of lay 
delegates into any annual conference on a vote of two-thirds 
of the members of the annual conference. The committee 
recommended that, when a majority of the Bishops were satis¬ 
fied that there was a general desire for lay representation in 
the General Conference, they were authorized to present a 
plan by which the members of the Church might “express 
their requests by voting." This was so roundabout and 
illusory that it was not even brought to a vote. 

J. J. Glossbrenner, J. Weaver, and J. Dickson were re¬ 
elected Bishops, and Milton Wright and Nicholas Castle were 


474 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


elected Bishops for the first time. J. W. Hott was elected 
editor of the Religious Telescope, and W. 0. Tobey assistant 
editor. W. J. Shuey was reelected publishing agent. D. K. 
Flickinger was reelected missionary secretary. J. K. Bill- 
heimer was elected missionary treasurer. D. Berger was 
elected editor of Sunday School literature. William Mitten- 
dorf was elected editor of the German papers. Robert Cowden 
was elected secretary of the Sunday School Association for the 
first time. 

Bishops Milton Wright and Nicholas Castle. 

Milton Wright, one of the two newly-elected Bishops, 
had been prominent before the Church for eight years as the 
editor of the Religious Telescope. His ancestors can be 
traced through a number of generations in Essex, England. 
Samuel Wright, through whom the family was transplanted 
to America, came to New England in 1636, where his descend¬ 
ants continued to live for one hundred and seventy-five years. 
In 1814, Dan Wright, the father of the Bishop, moved to 
Montgomery county, Ohio, where he married Catherine 
Reeder, whose mother was a sister of Benjamin Van Cleve, 
one of the founders of Dayton. In 1821, Dan and Catherine 
Wright moved to Rush county, Indiana, where Milton Wright 
was born, November 17, 1828. He had the advantage of the 
country schools and for a short time was a student in Harts- 
ville College. His education largely, however, was the result 
of private study. He was converted in 1843, when alone at 
work in his father’s field. For four years, he remained uncon¬ 
nected with any church, though the influences about him were 
from the Presbyterian and Methodist churches. Strongly im¬ 
pressed by the character and ability of John Morgan, a leading 
minister of White River conference, he joined the United 
Brethren Church, after having carefully studied its principles 
and methods. After passing through the stages of exhorter 
and quarterly conference preacher, he became a member of 
White River conference in 1853. Two years after joining the 
annual conference, he was appointed to Indianapolis mission 
station, and the next year was appointed to Andersonville 


PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881 


475 


circuit. Before the close of this year, he was sent as a mission¬ 
ary to Oregon, going by the Isthmus of Panama. While in 
Oregon, he was engaged in preaching, but from 1857 to 1859 
was the principal of Sublimity College, the first of the United 
Brethren schools on the Pacific coast. November 24, 1859, 
he was united in marriage with Susan Catherine Koerner, who 
had nearly completed a literary course in Hartsville College. 
As the mother of Wilbur and Orville Wright, the inventors of 
the flying machine, she always will have a name in history. 
After Mr. Wright's return from Oregon, he taught in the 
public schools, served as circuit and station preacher and as 
presiding elder. Hartsville College having established a 
theological department, he was chosen as teacher in this de¬ 
partment, at the same time serving as pastor of the local 
church, but before the close of the first year, in 1869, was 
elected editor of the Religious Telescope. 

By his strain of Puritan blood, by primal instincts, and 
by association, Milton Wright was committed to moral reform. 
His outlook was not confined to his own Church but extended 
to society at large. From first to last he was opposed to slavery, 
the rum traffic, and secret societies. His position in the 
earlier part of his career was strictly that of the Church at 
the corresponding time. His being made editor in 1869, and 
Bishop in 1877, was with the understood purpose on the part 
of the majority in the General Conference to make stronger 
and surer the historic position of the Church in regard to 
secret societies. Under the stress of experience, and with 
changed conditions, the Church, almost unconsciously to 
itself, came to change its methods if not its attitude in dealing 
with such societies; but Bishop Wright, with some others, 
stood by the traditional position of the Church without change. 

Bishop Wright was a vigorous writer, and by his system¬ 
atic methods gave to the Religious Telescope the impress of 
his own personality. As a Bishop, he was painstaking and 
faithful to his duties as he saw them. His sermons were well 
thought out, and often highly impressive. It is scarcely 
necessary to say that they always were his own. He was not 
reelected Bishop in 1881. This was due to two causes. Of 


476 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


course, he could not expect much support from the liberal 
delegates. Then, he had alienated some persons on the 
radical side, because in certain cases he was not pliant to their 
wishes. With a view to strengthening sentiment on the 
radical side, he established the “Richmond Star” at Rich¬ 
mond, Indiana, of which he was editor and publisher for three 
years. Quite unexpectedly to himself, he was elected Bishop 
again in 1885, and assigned to the Pacific Coast. It was a 
hardship for him to accept this new task, but, thinking that 
duty called, he gave himself earnestly to the field and work 
assigned him. With the work of the Church commission, 
provided for in 1885, he had no sympathy and exerted himself 
earnestly during his four years as Bishop and in the General 
Conference that followed to defeat its purpose. In the with¬ 
drawal from the Church in connection with the session of the 
General Conference of 1889, he was the one strong and trusted 
leader that gave character and cohesion to the withdrawing 
party. After the litigation following the General Conference 
of 1889 was over, Bishop Wright lived a quiet retired life with 
his daughter and sons in Dayton, Ohio, taking pleasure in 
the achievements in the field of invention of his sons, Wilbur 
and Orville, and receiving the kindly regard of all classes in 
the community. He died April 3, 1917. His body rests in 
Woodland cemetery. 

Nicholas Castle, the second of the newly-elected Bishops 
in 1877, was born October 4, 1837, in Elkhart county, Indiana. 
His father and mother, William and Harriet Van Brunt Castle, 
originally from Ontario county, New York, moved first to 
near Upper Sandusky, Ohio, and about 1835 settled near Elk¬ 
hart, Indiana. His father died September 25, 1839, and his 
mother October 22, 1850, leaving Nicholas, their youngest 
son, just entering his fourteenth year. His parents had been 
able to secure only the scantiest subsistence from the soil 
and at the loom, and now, with a delicate physical constitution, 
he was left almost from the first to shift for himself. He 
made his home for a short time with an elder brother. On 
the death of this brother soon afterward, he drifted about, 
when a Mr. Frizzell took him in, agreeing to keep him for two 


PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881 


477 


years, giving him clothing and allowing him three months 
schooling each year, and paying him twenty dollars at the end 
of the time. The two-year-period with Mr. Frizzell was 
extended to seven years, up to the time when he was of age. 
Mr. Frizzell was an exacting master, but Mrs. Frizzell showed 
him all the tenderness of a mother. 

Mr. Castle's parents were not professed Christians, though 
they freely opened their cabin to the United Brethren preachers. 
Outward conditions might have been somewhat responsible 
for their standing out from the Church, as they were thoroughly 
upright. The mother especially was strongly favorable to 
religion, and at her death professed a saving trust in Christ. 
Nicholas early had vivid religious impressions, and when eight 
years old, made a timid profession of religion. But, as no 
intelligent attention was given him, this early experience 
became dimmed, though not wholly lost. His concern for his 
spiritual condition led him, along with a young companion, 
to a protracted meeting conducted by the United Brethren. 
Here he went forward to the altar. After the meeting, he had 
a five-mile walk to his home. At prayer with a few in the home 
that night, but not until two o'clock in the morning, the 
great spiritual change took place. His own language is, 
“Quickly as an electric shock a heavenly influence smote me 
and permeated my whole being." Likewise at the family 
altar, a few months later, his call to preach, with an almost 
crushing burden of soul resting on him, was settled definitely 
and forever. August 2, 1856, he received license to exhort, 
and a few months later license to preach. On these credentials, 
though with great diffidence, he began to preach as require¬ 
ments were made upon him and as opportunities came. In 
1856, he was admitted to the St. Joseph conference and ap¬ 
pointed as junior preacher on Warsaw circuit. He was circuit 
preacher eight years, local one year, school agent one year, 
presiding elder nine years. He was a member of the General 
Conferences of 1869, 1873, and 1877. 

June 14, 1860, Mr. Castle was united in marriage to Miss 
Catherine A. Hummer, who was a faithful companion and co- 


478 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


worker up to the time of her death, April 27, 1879. September 
19, 1881, he was married to Miss Ellen Livengood. 

When Nicholas Castle entered the ministry, he was 
deeply conscious of his want of preparation for the responsible 
work to which he was called. He neglected nothing in seeking 
to make up for this lack. Of course, he studied the Bible, the 
doctrines of Christianity, and made himself acquainted with 
history, literature, and science as far as he was able. But he 
gave attention also to style and methods as but few others 
have done. While others were wasting their time or indulging 
in idle conversation, he was studying words, synonyms, and 
constructions, with the result that few could even rival him in 
felicity and force of expression, especially in the use of the 
language of the heart. 

Possibly in sympathy with his physical constitution, 
Mr. Castle’s mind was pensive, even perilously sensitive, but 
his contact with life and with people through countless chan¬ 
nels saved him from mental unhealth, and enabled him to 
minister truly to the deeper and diviner wants of the many 
that were touched by his life and public service. 

The mind of Nicholas Castle became greatly exercised 
with reference to higher attainments in the Christian life. 
Bishop Edwards had been the outstanding advocate of such 
an experience. When Mr. Castle heard of the death of Bishop 
Edwards, there came to him a flood tide of mental excitement 
and grief and he prayed, “0, God, let his mantle fall on me,” 
meaning his spiritual induement and power. This was an¬ 
swered in a way that he did not intend, by his being chosen to 
take Bishop Edwards’ official place. He made a complete 
consecration, held his offering before the Lord, and “the wit¬ 
nessing Spirit came like a deluge from heaven.” He became 
an earnest advocate of holiness, and led many others into an 
experience similar to his own. He discerned as much as any¬ 
one, the cheap, fictitious experiences and perversions abroad 
everywhere, but did not allow these to blind him to the reality 
of an exalted religious experience. After the experiences of 
his own life, and the observation and study of years, in 1913, 
he published his book entitled, “The Exalted Life,” in which 


PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881 


479 


he set forth his matured and chastened views on the subject 
of holiness, a book which the unconcerned Christian and the 
religious zealot alike would do well to read. 

Bishop Castle's first two terms as Bishop were spent on 
the Pacific Coast district. Later, his services were given to 
the districts east of the Rocky mountains. In 1905, he re¬ 
tired from the regular active work of the Church, feeling that 
his state of health did not warrant his assuming further official 
responsibilities. He was honored by being made emeritus 
Bishop. His late years were spent in his pleasant home at 
Philomath, Oregon. His interest in the local and general 
work of the Church remained undiminished to the last. He 
died April 18, 1922. His body lies in the cemetery at Philo¬ 
math. 

General Conference of 1881. 

The eighteenth General Conference met at Lisbon, Iowa, 
May 12, 1821. All five Bishops of the Church were present— 
Glossbrenner, Weaver, Dickson, Wright, and Castle. The 
following is the list of delegates according to their annual 
conferences: Allegheny, H. A. Thompson, D. Speck, M. 
Spangler; Auglaize, William Miller, William Dillon, J. L. 
Luttrell; California, D. Shuck, J. L. Field, T. J. Bauder; Cen¬ 
tral Illinois, L. Field, J. Morrison, J. Corley; Central Ohio, 
J. S. Mills, J. B. Ressler, J. W. Sleeper; Colorado, W. H. Mc¬ 
Cormick, L. S. Cornell; Dakota, I. G. W. Chase, D. M. Harvey; 
Eastern, L. W. Craumer, H. H. Gelbach, D. Hoffman; East 
Des Moines, A. Schwimley, R. Thrasher, William Kelsey; 
East Nebraska, W. A. Caldwell, S. Austin; East Pennsylvania, 
L. Peters, M. J. Mumma, I. Baltzell; Erie, John Hill, A. Hole- 
man, N. R. Luce; Fox River, R. G. Whitney, C. M. Clark; 
Illinois, N. A. Walker, I. Valentine, J. H. Snyder; Indiana, 
J. D. Current, S. Breden, M. Fowler; Iowa, E. B. Kephart, 
I. K. Statton, M. Bowman; Kansas, D. Shuck, S. D. Stone, 
H. A. Bell; Lower Wabash, S. Mills, W. M. Givens, R. L. 
Brengle; Miami, W. J. Shuey, W. McKee, H. Garst; Michigan, 
H. T. Barnaby, G. S. Lake, C. B. Sherk; Minnesota, M. L. 
Tibbetts, S. D. Kemerer, E. Clow; Missouri, A. W. Geeslin, 
D. A. Beauchamp, A. D. Thomas; Muskingum, B. F. Booth, 


480 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


R. Rock, G. F. Deal; North Ohio, J. K. Alwood, J. W. Lilly, 
J. N. Martin; Ohio German, G. Fritz, W. Mittendorf, C. 
Streich; Ontario, G. Plowman, D. B. Sherk, A. B. Sherk; 
Oregon, J. G. Mosher, A. Bennett, James Harritt; Osage, 
J. R. Evans, J. K. Spencer; Parkersburg, Z. Warner, W. M. 
Weekley, E. Harper; Pennsylvania, C. T. Stearn, Z. A. Cole- 
stock, W. J. Beamer; Rock River, P. Hurless, N. E. Gardner, 
W. H. Chandler; Saginaw, G. A. Bowles, H. H. Maynard, 
J. A. F. King; Sandusky, R. French, D. R. Miller, J. French; 
Scioto, L. Davis, W. McDaniel, William Fisher; Southern 
Illinois, G. W. Young; St. Joseph, George Sickafoose, H. A. 
Snep, F. Thomas; Tennessee, A. J. Newgent, C. B. Small, 
J. W. Bowen; Upper Wabash, T. M. Hamilton, J. W. Nye, 
J. Cowgill; Virginia, J. W. Hott, J. W. Howe, A. M. Evers; 
West Des Moines, G. Miller, J. E. Ham, G. J. Graham; West 
Kansas, E. Shepherd, James Knight; West Nebraska, W. S. 
Spooner, C. C. Kellogg, I. N. Martin; Western Reserve, J. G. 
Baldwin, D. Kosht, D. W. Sprinkle; White River, H. Floyd, 
J. M. Kabrich, J. T. Vardaman; Wisconsin, G. G. Nickey, 
A. Whitney. 

Outside of the usual routine work of the General Confer¬ 
ence, the present General Conference took decisive action on 
fewer items than did most of the conferences immediately 
preceding. The membership was reported as 159,367, a gain 
of 14,486. The falling below the gains as reported at previous 
sessions was perhaps due in part to dissatisfaction and con¬ 
tention over questions of policy now coming to a culmination. 
Three conference districts were formed from the territory of 
the Osage conference, the Osage, the South Missouri, and the 
Arkansas Valley. The West Kansas, West Nebraska, and 
the Central Ohio conferences had been constituted in the 
interval since the last session of the General Conference. The 
East Pennsylvania conference was attached to the Pennsyl¬ 
vania conference. 

Pro Rata Representation. 

Pro rata representation in the General Conference was 
at length enacted into law by a vote of sixty to fifty-seven. 



B. F. BOOTH 


A. W. DRURY 




JOSEPH GOMER 


Z. WARNER 























WILLIAM MITTENDORF JOHN KEMP 












PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881 


481 


The measure, however, was of a mild character. Conferences 
having less than three thousand members were entitled to two 
delegates. Those having from three thousand to six thousand 
five hundred were entitled to three delegates. Those having 
six thousand five hundred and over were entitled to four 
delegates. The matter of lay delegation in the General Con¬ 
ference was not taken up. 

The Secrecy Question. 

There were three distinct efforts to maintain or increase 
the rigidity of the law on secret societies, but after amend¬ 
ments were proposed, followed by discussions, the measures 
were laid on the table, either on motions made by their friends 
or their opposers. The majority did not seek a victory on 
either side, but for a respite from the strife. The leaders on 
the radical side welcomed an early adjournment, and hastened 
to their homes to begin a campaign of publicity or education 
to restore their waning power. 

The elections resulted as follows: J. J. Glossbrenner, 
J. Weaver, J. Dickson, and N. Castle were reelected Bishops, 
and E. B. Kephart was elected for the first time; publishing 
agent, W. J. Shuey; editor of the Religious Telescope, J. W. 
Hott, with M. R. Drury later chosen as assistant; editor of 
Sunday School literature, D. Berger; missionary secretary, 
D. K. Flickinger; missionary treasurer, J. K. Billheimer; 
secretary of the Sunday School Association, R. Cowden. 

Bishop E. B. Kephart. 

Ezekiel Boring Kephart, elected for his first term as 
Bishop in 1881, was born November 6, 1834, in Clearfield 
county, Pennsylvania. The name Kephart is the same as 
Gebhart, probably being a Swiss dialectical variation from the 
same, the name meaning a generous giver. The three Kephart 
brothers, prominent in the history of the Church, well may be 
named here together: Isaiah Lafayette, born December 10, 
1832; Ezekiel Boring, born November 6, 1834, and Cyrus 
Jeffries, born February 23, 1852, there being in all seven 
brothers and six sisters in the family. 


482 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Nicholas Kephart, the great-grandfather of E. B. Kephart, 
came from Switzerland to America about 1772, first settling 
in Berks county, Pennsylvania, and about 1801 removing 
with his son Henry, Sr., to Center county, Pennsylvania, on 
the western slope of the Alleghenies. In 1803, the family 
home became fixed in what now is Clearfield county. The 
country about them was a forest wilderness. The land slowly 
was cleared, requiring a vast outlay of effort. Here Henry 
Kephart, Sr., brought up a family of twelve children. In 1858, 
he made a visit across the mountains, but on his return afoot 
probably perished in the snow, as search revealed no trace of 
him. His son Henry Kephart, Jr., born January 5, 1802, was 
married March 23, 1826, to Sarah Goss, her father's family 
including eight sons and five daughters. The Goss family, 
not only by their numbers, but by their native force and sturdy 
character, ranked high, and along with the members of the 
Kephart family made up an influential part of the community. 
Henry Kephart, Jr. and his wife, Sarah, had each been con¬ 
verted the year prior to their marriage, and had joined the 
United Brethren Church. It is probable that this section of 
the country, at that time, was a part of Pluntingdon circuit, 
belonging to the old conference in the East, and was served 
this year by John Hendricks. The record of the pioneer 
preachers in these regions is almost entirely lost. Their work 
survives, however, in the living streams that continue to flow 
from the fountains that were opened up in the humble cabins 
and rude schoolhouses of that early day. 

Henry Kephart, Jr. received license to preach and became 
a member of Pennsylvania conference in 1834, and was or¬ 
dained in 1837. His service as a preacher was almost entirely 
confined to the work of a local preacher. His memory was 
stored richly with passages from the Bible. E. B. Kephart 
was converted in the fall of 1851, and joined the United Breth¬ 
ren Church. His life as a child always had been upright. 
His father was a man of great evenness of temper. His mother 
was a woman of unusual force of character and maintained a 
mild and efficient control over her children. The unusual 
manner of his baptism showed his independent way of thinking 


PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881 


483 


and doing. Some time after his conversion, he and his father 
had been working at the saw-mill near their home, and had 
talked together about the duties of church members, including 
the duty of baptism. On their way home, as they were cross¬ 
ing a bridge over the stream on which the mill was built, the 
son said to the father, “I want you to baptize me.” The 
father said, “What, not right now.” “Yes,” said the son, 
“here is the water and you are duly authorized to baptize.” 
Right then and there, by the side of the stream, he kneeled 
down and received baptism at the hand of his father. 

Probably no more complete and lifelike picture of pioneer 
conditions in western Pennsylvania has been written or ever 
will be written than that penned by I. L. Kephart and pub¬ 
lished in several articles in the Religious Telescope under 
the heading, “Pioneer Life in the Alleghenies.” The wildness 
of the country, the abundance of game, the danger from savage 
beasts, the taxing work in the forest and field and at the loom, 
the meagerness even of the necessities of life, the rude and 
uncertain schools, and the visits at long intervals of the itiner¬ 
ant preacher, and withal a life full of adventure and interest— 
all this is given as it presented itself to young life plastic to its 
touch. 

The older Kephart children had the advantage of short 
terms of school. When E. B. Kephart was twenty-one and 
I. L. Kephart was twenty-three, they obtained the privilege 
from the school directors to attend for a winter term the one 
public school that they ever attended in which more than 
reading, writing, and arithmetic were taught. Here they 
received an intellectual awakening that sent them to an 
academy at Williamsport. From here, they went to Mount 
Pleasant College, and, on the merging of Mount Pleasant 
College in 1858 with Otterbein University, they entered that 
institution. They early had turned from farm work to buying 
and cutting timber and rafting it down the Susquehanna. 
They also had sought to build up their resources by teaching 
school. In order to maintain themselves at school, it was 
necessary for them to fall back at times on the means of in¬ 
come with which they already were familiar. Home study 


484 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


and small salary amounts from preaching further paved the 
way for a college course. E. B. Kephart received degrees from 
Otterbein University as follows: B. S. 1865, A. B. 1870, 
A. M. 1873, D. D. 1881. These dates indicate the persistent 
seeking for the best education that it was possible for him to 
secure. In 1858, while in his first year in Otterbein Uni¬ 
versity, he was voted license to preach by the Clearfield 
quarterly conference, and in 1859 he and his brother I. L. 
Kephart were received into the Allegheny conference. He 
was ordained in 1861, at the hand of Bishop Glossbrenner, 
I. L. Kephart being ordained in 1863, likewise by Bishop 
Glossbrenner. Following the course that he completed in 
1865, he was principal for a short time of Michigan Institute, 
a church school at Leoni, Michigan, and then two years a 
pastor in Pennsylvania. November 4, 1860, he was united 
in marriage with Miss Susan J. Trefts, who was his faithful 
companion and associate in all of the duties and experiences 
that awaited him. In August, 1868, he was elected president 
of Western College, located at Western, Linn county, Iowa, 
continuing in that position thirteen years. While there was 
plenty of administrative work to do as the president of the 
college, for the greater part of the time he did full work teach¬ 
ing in the class room. In his administrative work, both as 
toward the students in the college and as toward the patron¬ 
izing constituency of the institution, his preference was to 
influence and lead, but he could enforce his will when necessary. 
Generally, his sincere interest in the students and the welfare 
of the college forestalled or disarmed pettiness and opposition. 
He always had the high regard and cooperation of his co¬ 
workers. 

When the General Conference met in Lisbon in 1881, he 
was the logical man to be elected to the Bishop's office. He 
was in the prime of his manhood. He was a man of splendid 
physique and impressive presence. He had a wide range of 
experience as preacher, as an educator, and as an adminis¬ 
trator. He himself was accessible, and had a ready approach 
to others. For four years, he had been a member of the State 
Senate of Iowa. As chairman of the committee on temper- 


PERIOD FROM 1865 TO 1881 


485 


ance, he was successful in securing the adoption of advanced 
temperance legislation. He also was influential in securing 
the adoption of measures for the improvement of the public 
schools. Besides, the Church at this time was looking 
for a man of moderate and progressive views in regard to 
questions that had been a subject of anxiety and distress in 
the Church for a long term of years. The various acts of the 
General Conference in 1881 were a clear notice that vexed 
questions should no longer divide the Church into parties. 
Bishop Kephart was not as ready or even a preacher as some, 
but he generally carried his audience with him, and often his 
sermons were characterized by masterly presentation of truth 
and great force of appeal. As a man, a Christian, and a 
churchman, his influence always was salutary. 

Mr. Kephart presided as Bishop from 1881 to 1885 over 
the Southwest district. From 1885 to 1897, the Bishops 
rotated on the different districts. In this period of crisis in 
the Church, the effect of each Bishop coming in contact with 
the whole Church was beneficial. From 1897 to 1901, Bishop 
Kephart presided over the Ohio district. On his retirement from 
the office of Bishop in 1905, he continued to reside in Annville, 
Pennsylvania, where he had previously made his home. 

In the course of his duties as Bishop he visited the mission 
fields in Africa and Germany three times, and in connection 
with one of these trips he visited the Holy Land. In conse¬ 
quence of climatic influences, he contracted malarial poisons 
on these visits to Africa, affecting specially his heart, from 
which he never recovered. In 1905, after giving full considera¬ 
tion to the matter, he asked the General Conference that he 
be not given further official responsibilities, and was made 
Bishop emeritus, by the conference. He yet was called out to 
render service, especially in support of the educational work. 
January 15, 1906, he left home in his usual health to assist in 
a financial campaign in behalf of Indiana Central University. 
Nine days later, the Church was shocked by the announce¬ 
ment that Bishop Kephart had died suddenly from neuralgia 
of the heart in an office building in Indianapolis. His body 
was taken to Annville, Pennsylvania, where, after suitable 


486 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


funeral exercises, it was laid away in its last resting place. It 
may be said of him that his work was born with him, and that 
he was true to it from first to last. A characteristic with him, 
almost a distinguishing one, was that he was not continually 
accusing himself. Looking back on his life, he said: “If I 
could choose today, I should decide to give my life to preaching 
the gospel of the Son of God and in the Church in which I 
have spent my life.” It was not a boast when he said that he 
thought he had made the most of the material that was in 
him, and when he said to the General Conference, “I think 
that I have served my Church well and the cause of God well.” 
This was simply the Roman frankness that he always evinced. 


CHAPTER XII. 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 
RECONSTRUCTION AND LITIGATION 


General Conference of 1885—The Church Commission—-Bishop Flickinger 
—Work of the Commission—General Conference of 1889—Adoption of 
the Work of the Commission—The Withdrawal—Other Measures 
—Bishop Hott—General Conference of 1893—Young People’s 
Work—Bishop Mills—General Conference of 1897— 
Litigation—A Federal Case—Cost and Gain— 

United Brethren Church (Old Constitution). 


ALREADY indicated, the struggle between the 
f* sH liberal and radical elements at the General Confer- 
ence of 1881 was a draw, neither side caring for a 
real test of strength. Bishop Hott, who was elected 
editor of the Religious Telescope in 1877, while not departing 
widely from the earlier policy of that periodical, made it more 
representative of the growing sentiment in the Church for a 
modification of the past policy of the Church in regard to 
secret societies, and more sympathetic toward a real representa¬ 
tion of the Church in annual and general conferences. On 
the other hand, the Richmond Star was established in March, 
1882, at Richmond, Indiana, by Bishop Wright to strengthen 
and promote sentiment in favor of the maintenance of former 
policies, with the hope that the succeeding General Conference 
might be so constituted as to pile up the old-time majorities 
for the same. The United Brethren Tribune, first issued in 
1873, and the United Brethren Observer, its successor, both 
published at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, already had taken the 
field to promote sentiment and action on the opposite side. 
Still earlier agitation and effort outside of usual channels had 
been resorted to. Following the adoption of the strict law 
against membership in secret societies in 1869, members of 
the White River conference held a convention at Indianapolis, 
in which the law was declared to be injurious and impracticable. 
Following the action of the General Conference of 1877 on 


487 


488 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


secret societies, conventions were held June 16, 1877, at Harris¬ 
burg, Pennsylvania, and May 21, 1878, at Dayton, Ohio, in 
each of which more than twelve large annual conferences were 
represented, in opposition to the secrecy legislation, but also 
in the interest of pro rata representation and lay delegation. 
District and local conventions also were held for the same 
purposes. Conventions were not yet in order on the part of 
the radicals, as they were in control of the Church organization; 
but, when they lost control in 1885, a notable convention was 
convened August 4, 1885, at Hartsville, Indiana, to consolidate 
their power. They likewise steadily maintained a periodical 
in the interest of their principles and policies, the Christian 
Conservator, taking the place of the Richmond Star in 1885, 
and also the “ United Brethren in Christ/' published in Cham- 
bersburg, Pennsylvania. Both sides sought to strengthen 
themselves by influences outside of the Church. The contro¬ 
versy at times was attended with acrimony and the im¬ 
pugning of motives. The terms “liberal” and “modifica- 
tionist” were applied much as the term “secessionist” was 
used in the time of the Civil War. On the other hand, 
the term “radical” was made a symbol for obsoleteness and 
obstinacy. Yet, as time has thrown its mellowing light over 
those years of strife, much of sincerity and strength and cour¬ 
age of conviction, as well as real ability and strategy in the 
conflict, is discernible on each side. But none the less were 
the immediate effects unfavorable. Many congregations were 
distracted and some were lost. The year 1881 showed a slight 
loss in membership, and in other years gains were reduced. 
In important centers little could be done. 

The campaign to secure a modification of the rigid law on 
secret societies centered around the tall form of Bishop Weaver. 
His large acquaintance with the Church and his ready pen 
made him the chief leader in the great struggle. He published 
two articles in the Religious Telescope under the caption 
“The Outlook,” and other articles under the same title in 
support of the same and in answer to his critics. The first 
article bore date of August 22,1883. It was moderate in tone, 
though earnestly pointing out that a modification of the law 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


489 


on secret societies was necessary. The article called out many 
criticisms, but also many words of approval. An elaborate 
article in which he went so far as to indicate the steps that 
might be taken to secure the desired changes appeared Febru¬ 
ary 25, 1885. 


General Conference of 1885. 

The nineteenth General Conference met at Fostoria, Ohio, 
May 14, 1885. The personnel of the General Conferences in 
this period was of such importance that, as heretofore, not¬ 
withstanding the number of delegates, the names of all dele¬ 
gates for this and the succeeding General Conference will be 
given. The following is the list according to the annual con¬ 
ferences represented: Allegheny, D. D. DeLong, L. W. Stahl, 
L. R. Jones, M. 0. Lane; Arkansas Valley, P. B. Lee, J. H. 
Snyder; Auglaize, William Miller, William Dillon, J. L. Lut- 
trell; California, D. Shuck, T. J. Bauder; Central Illinois, 
L. Field, A. B. Powell; Central Ohio, J. S. Mills, E. Bernard, 
J. B. Ressler; Dakota, D. M. Harvey; East Des Moines, A. 
Schwimley, H. A. Long; East German, L. W. Craumer, J. B. 
Daugherty, A. Graul; East Nebraska, E. W. Johnson, W. P. 
Caldwell; Elkhom, W. S. Spooner, D. D. Weimer; Erie, R. J. 
White, J. Hill, L. L. Hager; Fox River, N. G. Whitney, J. Frey; 
Illinois, J. B. King, A. Rigney; Indiana, J. Breeden, J. M. 
Fowler, John Riley; Iowa, R. E. Williams, I. K. Statton; 
Kansas, E. B. Slade, David Shuck; Lower Wabash, S. Mills, 
W. M. Givens, L. Bookwalter; Miami, W. J. Shuey, William 
McKee, H. Garst, S. M. Hippard; Michigan, H. T. Barnaby, 
B. H. Mowers; Minnesota, J. W. Fulkerson, M. L. Tibbetts; 
Missouri, D. A. Beauchamp, A. W. Geeslin; Muskingum, B. F. 
Booth, J. Cecil, J. N. Lemasters; North Michigan, R. H. 
Watson, G. A. Bowles; North Ohio, J. W. Lilly, W. H. Clay, 
J. K. Alwood; Ohio German, G. Fritz, W. Mittendorf; Ontario, 
D. B. Sherk, G. Plowman; Oregon, J. G. Mosher, A. Bennett; 
Osage, B. A. Spring, J. R. Chambers; Parkersburg, Z. Warner, 
S. J. Graham, W. M. Weekley, E. Harper; Pennsylvania, W. J. 
Beamer, C. T. Stearn, Ezekiel Light, Z. A. Colestock; Rock 
River, W. H. Chandler, J. H. Grimm; Sandusky, D. R. Miller, 


490 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


W. Martin, T. J. Harbaugh, I. Crouse; Scioto, J. H. Dickson, 
G. W. Deaver, S. Whitmore, W. H. Price; St. Joseph, F. 
Thomas, J. R. Brown, J. F. Bartmess, H. A. Snep; Southwest 
Missouri, E. L. Joslin, R. C. Thomas; Tennessee, R. F. Bryant, 
A. J. Newgent; Upper Wabash, J. W. Nye, T. M. Hamilton, 
Joseph Cooper; Virginia, J. W. Hott, J. W. Howe, J. K. Nelson, 

C. M. Hott; West Des Moines, George Miller, J. D. Snyder, 
L. H. Bufkin; West Kansas, C. U. McKee, I. W. Williams; 
West Nebraska, E. L. Kenoyer, J. D. Fye; Western Reserve, 

D. W. Sprinkle, J. G. Baldwin, J. Noel; White River, M. 
Wright, H. Floyd, J. M. Kabrich; Wisconsin, F. J. Crowder. 
It will be noticed that the representation was on a moderate 
pro rata basis, the previous General Conference by a close 
vote having provided for the same. All of the bishops, J. J. 
Glossbrenner, J. Weaver, J. Dickson, N. Castle, and E. B. 
Kephart, were present. The membership of the Church was 
reported as 168,573, a gain of 10,861. The Bishops’ address 
.was prepared and read by Bishop E. B. Kephart. The address 
called for a decision by the General Conference as to whether 
the Constitution as given in the Discipline had a force beyond 
that of legislative enactment by the General Conference, or 
was yet subject to the General Conference. If it had this 
superior authority, the address recommended that amendments 
should be submitted to the membership, the approval of two- 
thirds of those voting being sufficient for ratification. If the 
General Conference had full authority in the case, it was 
recommended that it should shape the rule against membership 
in secret societies so that it would apply simply to societies 
to which the Church believed a Christian could not belong. 

J. Weaver, E. B. Kephart, J. Dickson, and N. Castle were 
reelected Bishops. M. Wright was elected Bishop for the 
Pacific Coast. D. K. Flickinger was elected missionary Bishop. 
Bishop Glossbrenner, after forty years as active bishop was 
elected Bishop emeritus. His death occurred two years later. 
Other officers elected were J. W. Hott, editor of the Religious 
Telescope; W. J. Shuey, publishing agent; D. Berger, editor of 
Sunday School literature (after the election and resignation of 
J. P. Landis); E. Light, editor of German literature; Z. Warner, 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


491 


missionary secretary; W. McKee, missionary treasurer; D. R. 
Miller, general manager of Union Biblical Seminary; R. Cow- 
den, secretary of Sunday School association. 

Fox River conference was united with Wisconsin confer¬ 
ence. Maryland conference was conditionally authorized. 
Elkhorn and Dakota conferences were united. East Des 
Moines and Iowa conferences were authorized to unite. Penn¬ 
sylvania and East Pennsylvania conferences, which were sup¬ 
posed to be united at the preceding session of the General 
Conference, had maintained a semi-independent character, 
though holding joint sessions during the quadrennium. They 
were now made entirely separate conferences. Action was 
taken that led to the establishing of an eastern book and 
publishing house at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a venture that 
terminated in a few years with a loss of over $3,000 to the 
Publishing House at Dayton. 

The Church Commission. 

A committee of thirteen to which the recommendations 
named in the Bishops’ address were referred, reported a plan 
for a Church Commission, composed of twenty-seven members, 
who should prepare amended forms for the Constitution and 
Confession of Faith, to be submitted to the membership for 
approval, two-thirds of the votes cast being necessary and 
sufficient for approval. The commission plan was approved 
by a vote of seventy-eight to forty-two. A number of the 
members voting in the negative explained that they were in 
favor of submitting the questions involved to the membership 
but could not approve the methods proposed. A modified 
rule in regard to connection with secret societies was approved 
by a vote of seventy-six to thirty-eight. 

A number of the friends of the commission plan did not 
believe that the Constitution had other than legislative au¬ 
thority. Others believed that it had acquired authority by 
use and consent, and of course others regarded it as of funda¬ 
mental authority. The General Conference, without express¬ 
ing a judgment as to these conflicting opinions, declared that 
its action should not be construed as invalidating the “con- 


492 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


stitutional instrument.” Yet, from the nature of the Con¬ 
stitution and the different interpretations of the same, any 
feasible way for amendment that might have been adopted 
would have encountered serious difficulties. Later events 
proved that it would have been wiser to undertake the revision 
of the Confession of Faith after all the steps in the revision 
and adoption of the Constitution had been completed. The 
real difficulties in regard to the revision of the Confession of 
Faith were much greater than those attending the revision 
of the Constitution, and there was no immediate urgency in 
regard to the Confession. In the long discussion attending 
the adoption of these measures, the minority, drawing their 
weapons from the past, made the strongest possible presenta¬ 
tion of their case, but time and tide were against them. The 
presentation on the other side, if less defiant and obstinate, 
was not less effective. 

Bishop Daniel Kumler Flickinger. 

Daniel Kumler Flickinger, elected missionary Bishop in 
1885, was the connecting bond in the foreign missionary work 
of the Church from the very beginning of that work. It might 
be more appropriate for the sketch of his life to be given in 
connection with the account of the missionary work of the 
Church, but the missionary note is proper at any stage and in 
any connection. He himself was not in favor of the electing 
of a missionary Bishop but the General Conference in its 
action was influenced by alleged considerations of economy 
and efficiency. Mr. Flickinger's ancestors on his father's side 
were Swiss Mennonites. His mother was a daughter of Bishop 
Henry Kumler, Sr. His parents moved from Franklin county, 
Pennsylvania, to Butler county, Ohio, settling near the village 
of Seven Mile in 1818. Here Daniel, the sixth in a family of 
fourteen children, was bom, May 25, 1824. His father, Jacob 
Flickinger, was a prosperous farmer, and a zealous local preacher 
in the United Brethren Church. He believed in hard work, 
practiced a severe economy, operated a distillery for a time, 
as many farmers did then, cared well for his large family, but 
had a prejudice against an education beyond the common 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


493 


schools. His house was a regular preaching place, and preach¬ 
ers' home as well. Daniel, the son, gladly would have given 
up his share in the estate for the opportunity of an education. 
Beyond the common schools, he had the advantage of one 
year’s attendance at an academy. Early in life, and at times 
later, he was under the disadvantage of poor health. He was 
married first to Mary Lintner in 1847, she dying four years 
later. In 1853, he was married to Catherine Glossbrenner, 
who died the following year. In 1856, he was married to 
Susannah Woolsey, a teacher in a mission school in Africa. 
With the care and education of his children, four of whom grew 
up to maturity, and with varying family responsibilities, he 
might easily have felt himself excused from entering upon an 
exacting public career. Mr. Flickinger was a small man, of 
slight build, never in robust health, but of keen temper and 
dauntless purpose. He cared nothing for brilliancy or showy 
methods, but only for results. From early youth, he had 
strong religious impressions, but was slow in reaching a clear 
experience and a decision for the ministry, as indicated by the 
fact that when he became a member of the Miami conference 
in 1850, he already had reached his twenty-sixth year. After 
a varied experience as a pastor and city missionary for four 
years, he offered himself to the Board of Missions, founded in 
1853, as a missionary to Africa, “provided no better person 
could be secured.” At first rejected because of his lack of 
physical health and strength, he was at length appointed to go 
with W. J. Shuey and D. C. Kumler as the first foreign mission¬ 
aries of the Church, the west coast of Africa being the field 
fixed upon. They sailed from New York, January 23, 1855, 
and reached Freetown the 26th of the following month. Much 
time was spent in seeking a location for the mission. After 
the missionaries had explored the country, and done as much 
as was possible at the time to find a location, Mr. Shuey and 
Mr. Kumler, after being on the field until June 30, returned 
to America. Mr. Flickinger remained in Africa seventeen 
months. The permanent site at Shenge was not secured until 
on Mr. Flickinger’s second visit in 1857. By the General 
Conference which met in May, 1857, he was elected secretary 


494 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


of the missionary society in the place of J. C. Bright, who had 
served so earnestly and efficiently the preceding four years. 
This position he continued to occupy with a slight break in 
1857-1858, until he was elected missionary Bishop in 1885. 
In all, he made twelve trips to Africa, every trip after the first 
one occupying from five to eight months. The twelfth trip 
was made in 1896 for the mission of the Radical United Breth¬ 
ren, he, after completing his term as Bishop, having joined the 
Radical United Brethren Church. After serving as mission¬ 
ary secretary in that church for about nine years he reunited 
with the Miami conference in 1906. In his missionary work, 
he visited Germany eight times. In the United States, his 
visits to conferences and mission fields led to repeated visits 
to all parts of the country. In the interest of the Church work, 
mostly for missions, he traveled 570,000 miles. He kept careful 
diaries, wrote copious articles for the Church periodicals, 
edited missionary literature, and wrote books entitled, “ Mis¬ 
sionary Life in West Africa,” “Marching Orders,” “Our 
Missionary Work,” “Fifty-five years in the Gospel Ministry,” 
and, jointly with W. J. Shuey, “Doctrinal and Practical 
Sermons.” His care and help were not simply for the mission¬ 
ary work, but extended to all of the interests of the Church, 
especially to the work of education, his gifts to various interests 
amounting to not less than $15,000. Along with his money, 
he gave his influence and service. In his consecration and 
utter abandonment to his work, he stood out quite alone. 

Mr. Flickinger attended the session of the Miami confer¬ 
ence in Dayton, August 23-28, 1911, and on the day following, 
died suddenly at Columbus, Ohio. His body is buried at 
Oxford, Ohio. 

The Work of the Church Commission. 

The Church commission appointed by the General Con¬ 
ference met at Dayton, Ohio, November 17, 1885, and spent 
seven days in the accomplishment of its work. The following 
are the names of the members of the commission: Bishops 
Weaver, Kephart, Castle, Glossbrenner, Dickson and Wright 
(the last two named not attending), G. A. Funkhouser, L. W. 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


495 


Craumer, J. A. Shauck, H. Garst, D. L. Rike, J. S. Mills, W. M. 
Beardshear, A. M. Beal, G. Miller, H. A. Snep, I. K. Statton, 
L. Bookwalter, S. D. Kemp, J. B. King, J. H. Snyder, J. R. 
Evans, P. C. Hetzler, I. L. Kephart, J. Hill, J. W. Hott, and 
W. J. Shuey. 

The form of the Confession of Faith was improved greatly. 
The Confession was made somewhat fuller, but no doctrine 
was changed in substance. The Constitution was put into a 
more orderly and workable form. Most important of all, it 
provided a clear method for the making of amendments. 

The Commission, as directed by the General Conference, 
provided a plan of submitting the Confession and the Constitu¬ 
tion as agreed upon to a vote of the membership of the Church, 
an affirmative vote of two-thirds of those voting being neces¬ 
sary for adoption. Two parts of the Constitution, one relating 
to lay delegation in the General Conference, and one to secret 
societies, were to be voted on and approved separately in 
order to become parts of the Constitution. 

These documents were kept before the Church indus¬ 
triously until November, 1888, when the vote was taken 
throughout the Church. The vote resulted as follows: for 
the amended Confession of Faith, 51,070, against, 3,310; for 
the amended Constitution, 50,685, against, 3,659; for lay 
delegation, 48,825, against, 5,634; for section on secret societies, 
46,994, against, 7,289. The statement of the result of the vote 
was prepared and signed for submission to the ensuing General 
Conference. 

Opponents of the work of the Commission had adopted 
the plan of presenting a protest to the ensuing General Con¬ 
ference. Such a protest, purporting to be signed by 16,282 
members of the Church, was presented. A committee ap¬ 
pointed to consider the same, of which Daniel Shuck was 
chairman, reported among other items the following: “Said 
petitions have been in circulation for three years, contain 
names of parties who are dead, of parties who are not members 
of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, names of 
persons who voted for the revised Confession of Faith and 
amended Constitution.” 


/ 


496 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


General Conference of 1889. 

The twentieth General Conference met at York, Pennsyl¬ 
vania, May 9, 1889. All of the Bishops were present— 
Weaver, Dickson, Castle, Kephart, Flickinger, and Wright. 
The annual conferences were represented as follows: Allegheny, 

L. W. Stahl, J. Medsger, J. I. L. Resler, D. Shearer; Arkansas 
Valley, S. W. Foulk, J. H. Snyder, P. B. Lee; Auglaize, E. 
Counseller, W. E. Bay, J. L. Luttrell, R. W. Wilgus; California, 
D. A. Mobley, D. Shuck; Central Illinois, D. 0. Giffin, H. W. 
Trueblood, A. C. Scott; Central Ohio, A. Orr, J. S. Mills, W. J. 
Davis; East Des Moines, A. Schwimley, D. Miller; East Ger¬ 
man, J. H. Mark, A. Graul, J. Runk; East Nebraska, W. M. 
Buswell, E. W. Johnson; East Ohio, D. W. Sprinkle, B. F. 
Booth, W. B. Leggett, J. Cecil; East Pennsylvania, I. Baltzell, 
J. W. Etter, G. W. M. Rigor; Elkhorn and Dakota, W. L. 
Bowman; Erie, John Hill, L. L. Hager, I. Bennehoff; Illinois, 
W. B. Shinn; Indiana, J. M. Fowler, J. L. Funkhouser, A. E. 
Hottel, J. F. Demunbrun; Iowa, W. M. Beardshear, T. D. 
Adams, W. I. Beatty; Kansas, E. B. Slade, F. R. Mitchell; 
Lower Wabash, S. Mills, J. G. Shuey, J. L. Brandenburg; 
Maryland, C. I. B. Brane, A. M. Evers, J. G. Roudabush; 
Miami, W. McKee, S. W. Keister, G. M. Mathews, W. J. 
Shuey; Michigan, H. T. Barnaby, W. S. Titus; Minnesota, 

M. L. Tibbetts, U. A. Cook; Missouri, U. P. Wardrip; Neosho, 
J. K. Spencer, J. R. Chambers; North Michigan, C. L. Wood, 

G. A. Bowles; North Ohio, C. H. Kiracofe, W. H. Clay, J. K. 
Alwood; Ohio German, G. Fritz, E. Lorenz; Ontario, G. H. 
Backus, J. Mager; Parkersburg, W. M. Weekley, S. J. Graham, 
R. A. Hitt, C. Hall; Pennsylvania, H. A. Schlichter, C. S. 
Steam, A. H. Rice, W. J. Beamer; Rock River, C. Bender, 

H. D. Healey; Sandusky, T. J. Harbaugh, W. A. Keesy, D. R. 
Miller, E. B. Maurer; Scioto, G. W. Deaver, J. H. Dickson, 
W. H. Price, S. Whitmore; Southern Missouri, E. L. Joslin, 
R. C. Thomas; St. Joseph, H. A. Snep, J. F. Bartmess, A. M. 
Cummins, J. W. Eby; Upper Wabash, J. W. Nye, T. M. 
Hamilton, A. M. Snyder; Virginia, J. W. Howe, C. P. Dyche, 
J. W. Hott, A. P. Funkhouser; Walla Walla, N. Evans, J. M. 
Tresenriter; West Des Moines, George Miller, J. D. Snyder, 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


497 


L. H. Bufkin; West Kansas, C. U. McKee, J. S. Howard; West 
Nebraska, G. F. Deal; White River, H. Floyd, I. M. Tharp, 
Z. McNew, J. M. Kabrich; Wisconsin, A. D. Whitney, A. J. 
Hood. 

The membership had grown to 207,800, an addition of 
39,250, a healthy increase considering the agitation that 
extended throughout the quadrennium. The Bishops in their 
address gave a worthy tribute to Bishop Glossbrenner, and also 
Z. Warner and Lee Fisher, who had died within the quad¬ 
rennium. 

Adoption of the Work of the Commission. 

The address of the Bishops included an extended state¬ 
ment in regard to the work of the Church Commission and the 
vote of the Church on the matters submitted to the Church for 
its approval. The address was given in behalf of all of the 
Bishops except Bishop Wright, who dissented from that part 
of the report relating to the Church Commission. The report 
of the Commission was referred to a committee. The com¬ 
mittee reported back to the Conference declaring the regularity 
of the proceedings in the various steps taken in the adoption 
of the different measures that were submitted to the vote of 
the Church by the act of the preceding General Conference 
and according to the plan of the Commission. After a long 
discussion, the General Conference approved the report by a 
vote of 110 to 20, and, on May 13, on the proclamation of the 
Bishops, the Church came under the revised Constitution and 
revised Confession of Faith. The following are the Confession 
of Faith and the Constitution as adopted: 

Confession of Faith. 

In the name of God, we declare and confess before all men 
the following articles of our belief: 

Article J .—Of God and the Holy Trinity . 

We believe in the only true God, the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost; that these three are one—the Father 
in the Son, the Son in the Father, and the Holy Ghost equal 
in essence or being with the Father and the Son. 


498 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Article II.—Of Creation and Providence. 

We believe that this triune God created the heavens and 
the earth, and all that in them is, visible and invisible; that 
he sustains, protects, and governs these, with gracious regard 
for the welfare of man, to the glory of his name. 

Article III.—Of Jesus Christ. 

We believe in Jesus Christ; that he is very God and man; 
that he became incarnate by the power of the Holy Ghost and 
was born of the Virgin Mary ; that he is the Savior and Mediator 
of the whole human race, if they with full faith accept the 
grace proffered in Jesus; that this Jesus suffered and died on 
the cross for us, was buried, rose again on the third day, 
ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God to 
intercede for us; and that he will come again at the last day to 
judge the living and the dead. 

Article IV.—Of the Holy Ghost. 

We believe in the Holy Ghost; that he is equal in being 
with the Father and the Son; that he convinces the world of 
sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; that he comforts the 
faithful and guides them into all truth. 

Article V.—Of the Holy Scriptures. 

We believe that the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, 
is the word of God; that it reveals the only true way to our 
salvation; that every true Christian is bound to acknowledge 
and receive it by the help of the Spirit of God as the only rule 
and guide in faith and practice. 

Article VI.—Of the Church. 

We believe in a holy Christian church, composed of true 
believers, in which the word of God is preached by men divinely 
called, and the ordinances are duly administered; that this 
divine institution is for the maintenance of worship, for the 
edification of believers, and the conversion of the world to 
Christ. 


Article VII.—Of the Sacraments. 

We believe that the sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s 
Supper, are to be used in the Church, and should be practiced 
by all Christians; but the mode of baptism and the manner of 
observing the Lord’s Supper are always to be left to the judg¬ 
ment and understanding of each individual. Also, the bap¬ 
tism of children shall be left to the judgment of believing par¬ 
ents. 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


499 


The example of the washing of feet is to be left to the judg¬ 
ment of each one, to practice or not. 

Article VIII.—Of Depravity. 

We believe that man is fallen from original righteousness, 
and, apart from the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, is not only- 
destitute of holiness, but is inclined to evil, and only evil, and 
that continually; and that except a man be born again he 
cannot see the kingdom of heaven. 

Article IX.—Of Justification. 

We believe that penitent sinners are justified before God 
only by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and not by works; yet 
that good works in Christ are acceptable to God, and spring 
out of a true and living faith. 

Article X.—Of Regeneration and Adoption. 

We believe that regeneration is the renewal of the heart 
of a man after the image of God, through the word, by the act 
of the Holy Ghost, by which the believer receives the spirit of 
adoption, and is enabled to serve God with the will and the 
affections. 

Article XI.—Of Sanctification. 

We believe that sanctification is the work of God’s grace, 
through the word and the Spirit, by which those who have 
been born again are separated in their acts, words, and thoughts 
from sin, and are enabled to live unto God, and to follow holi¬ 
ness, without which no man shall see God. 

Article XII.—Of the Christian Sabbath. 

We believe that the Christian Sabbath is divinely ap¬ 
pointed; that it is commemorative of our Lord’s resurrection 
from the grave and is an emblem of our eternal rest; that it is 
essential to the welfare of the civil community, and to the 
permanence and growth of the Christian church, and that it 
should be reverently observed as a day of holy rest and of 
social and public worship. 

Article XIII.—Of the Future State. 

We believe in the resurrection of the dead; the future 
general judgment; and an eternal state of rewards, in which 
the righteous dwell in endless life, and the wicked in endless 
punishment. 

Constitution. 

In the name of God, we, the members of the Church of 
The^United Brethren in Christ, for the work of the minis- 


500 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


try, for the edifying of the body of Christ, for the more speedy 
and effectual spread of the gospel, and in order to produce and 
secure uniformity in faith and practice, to define the powers 
and business of the General Conference as recognized by this 
Church, and to preserve inviolate the popular will of the 
membership of the Church, do ordain this Constitution: 

Article I. 

Section 1. All ecclesiastical power herein granted to 
enact or repeal any rule or rules of Discipline is vested in a 
General Conference, which shall consist of elders and laymen 
elected in each annual-conference district throughout the 
Church. The number and ratio of elders and laymen, and the 
mode of their election, shall be determined by the General 
Conference. 

Provided, however , That such elders shall have stood as 
elders in the conferences which they are to represent for no 
less time than three years next preceding the meeting of the 
General Conference to which they are elected; and that such 
laymen shall be not less than twenty-five years of age, and shall 
have been members of the Church six years, and members in 
the conference districts which they are to represent at least 
three years next preceding the meeting of the General Confer¬ 
ence to which they are elected. 

Section 2. The General Conference shall convene every 
four years, and a majority of the whole number of delegates 
elected shall constitute a quorum. 

Section 3. The ministerial and lay delegates shall de¬ 
liberate and vote together as one body; but the General Con¬ 
ference shall have power to provide for a vote by separate 
orders whenever it deems it best to do so; and in such cases 
the concurrent vote of both orders shall be necessary to com¬ 
plete an action. 

Section 4. The General Conference shall at such session 
elect Bishops from among the elders throughout the Church 
who have stood six years in that capacity. 

Section 5. The Bishops shall be members ex officio and 
presiding officers of the General Conference; but in case no 
Bishop be present, the Conference shall choose a president 
pro tern. 

Section 6. The General Conference shall determine the 
number and boundaries of the annual conferences. 

# Section 7. The General Conference shall have power to 
review the records of the annual conferences, and see that the 
business of each annual conference is done strictly in accordance 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


501 


with the Discipline, and approve or annul, as the case may 
require. 

Section 8. The General Conference shall have full con¬ 
trol of the United Brethren Printing Establishment, the Home 
Missionary Society and the Foreign Missionary Society (legal 
successors to the Home, Frontier, and Foreign Missionary 
Society of the United Brethren in Christ), the Church Erection 
Society, the general Sabbath School Board, the Board of 
Education, and the Bonebrake Theological Seminary. It shall 
also have power to establish and manage any other organization 
or institution within the Church which it may deem helpful 
in the work of evangelization. 

Section 9. The General Conference shall have power to 
establish a court of appeals. 

Section 10. The General Conference may—two-thirds of 
the members elected thereto concurring—propose changes in, 
or additions to the Confession of Faith; provided, that the 
concurrence of three-fourths of the annual conferences shall 
be necessary to their final ratification. 

Article II. 

The General Conference shall have power as provided 
in Article I, Section 1, of this Constitution, to make rules and 
regulations for the Church; nevertheless, it shall be subject 
to the following limitations and restrictions: 

Section 1 . The General Conference shall enact no rule 
or ordinance which will change or destroy the Confession of 
Faith, and shall establish no standard of doctrine contrary to 
the Confession of Faith. 

Section 2. The General Conference shall enact no rule 
which will destroy the itinerant plan. 

Section 3. The General Conference shall enact no rule 
which will deprive local preachers of their votes in the annual 
conferences to which they severally belong. 

Section 4. The General Conference shall enact no rule 
which will abolish the right of appeal. 

Article III. 

Section 1. We declare that all secret combinations 
which infringe upon the rights of those outside their organiza¬ 
tion, and whose principles and practices are injurious to the 
Christian character of their members, are contrary to the Word 
of God, and that Christians ought to have no connection with 
them. 


502 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The General Conference shall have power to enact such 
rules of discipline with respect to such combinations as in its 
judgment it may deem proper. 

Section 2. We declare that human slavery is a violation 
of human rights, and contrary to the Word of God. It shall 
therefore in no wise be tolerated among us. 

Article IV. 

The right, title, interest, and claim of all property, both 
real and personal, of whatever name or description, obtained 
by purchase or otherwise, by any person or persons, for the 
use, benefit, and behoof of the Church of the United Brethren 
in Christ, are hereby fully recognized and held to vest in the 
Church aforesaid. 

Article V. 

Section 1. Amendments to this Constitution may be 
proposed by any General Conference—two-thirds of the 
members elected thereto concurring—which amendments shall 
be submitted to a vote of the membership throughout the 
Church, under regulations authorized by said conference. 

A majority of all votes cast upon any submitted amend¬ 
ment shall be necessary to its final ratification. 

Section 2. The foregoing amended Constitution shall be 
in force from and after the first Monday after the second 
Thursday of May, 1889, upon official proclamation thereof 
by the board of Bishops; provided that the General Conference 
elected for 1889 shall be the lawful legislative body under the 
amended Constitution, with full power, until its final adjourn¬ 
ment to enact such rules as this amended Constitution author¬ 
izes. 


The debate on the approval of the report on the amended 
Confession of Faith and Constitution was able and prolonged, 
and for the most part dignified and courteous. The minority, 
however, stood by their “protest” of four years before, which 
virtually declared that they would “never submit” unless their 
views and interpretations were followed. After the vote of 
approval by the General Conference, Bishop Hott offered a 
resolution seeking to hold the fellowship of the minority in 
which the declaration was made. “We hereby express our 
appreciation of the honesty and sincerity of our brethren 
opposed to the action of the majority of the Church, and we 
honor them for their faithfulness to their beliefs;” but, as its 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


503 


sentiment was not reciprocated, it was referred to the com¬ 
mittee on the state of the Church. 

The Withdrawal. 

Immediately on the proclamation of the Bishops on 
May 13, that the General Conference and the Church passed 
under the revised Confession of Faith and the revised Constitu¬ 
tion, fifteen of those voting with the minority arose and left 
the hall, and proceeded to another hall in the city of York, 
and entered upon what they claimed to be the continuance of 
the lawful session of the General Conference. They retained 
the name of The United Brethren in Christ, but later, where a 
distinction was necessary, the words “Old Constitution,” in 
a parenthesis, were made to follow. They filled vacancies 
from persons present until their number was increased to about 
thirty. In their successive sessions, they proceeded with all 
of the usual business of a General Conference, including the 
election of general officers. As it seemed necessary that the 
withdrawal of the minority should be officially recognized, the 
General Conference adopted the following resolution: 

Whereas, Milton Wright, a Bishop; J. K. Alwood, W. H. 
Clay, and C. H. Kiracofe, delegates from North Ohio confer¬ 
ence; H. T. Barnaby and W. S. Titus, delegates from Michigan 
conference; C. L. Wood and G. A. Bowles, delegates from North 
Michigan conference; C. Bender, a delegate from Rock River 
conference; A. Bennett, a delegate from Oregon conference; 
A. W. Geeslin, a delegate from Missouri conference, and 
Halleck Floyd, a delegate from White River conference, have 
actively participated in the proceedings of this body from its 
organization on the ninth day of May instant, until the close 
of the third day's session; and, 

Whereas, The Bishop and these delegates have vacated 
their seats in this body and have joined in the formation of 
another church organization, outside and separate and apart 
from the place officially occupied by this the lawfully elected 
General Conference of the United Brethren in Christ; therefore, 

Resolved, That the aforesaid persons are hereby declared 
as having irregularly withdrawn from this body and the 
Church, and are, in view of the facts above recited, no longer 
ministers or members of the Church of the United Brethren in 
Christ. 


504 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Three of the White River delegates were not named in the 
resolution, as by the report of the committee on credentials 
they were not entitled to a seat. 

At the close of this chapter, an account will be given of 
the results growing out of the division of the Church thus 
brought about. 


Other Measures. 

In various lines, the General Conference was occupied 
with constructive measures for the development and greater 
efficiency of the Church, thus showing an enlarged vision and 
a strengthened conviction as to its divinely appointed place 
in the work of the kingdom of Christ. 

Now that the General Conference had authority to pro¬ 
vide for lay delegation in the General Conference, the following 
conservative basis of representation was adopted: 

Not less than three nor more than six from each annual 
conference district. All conferences having less than three 
thousand members shall be entitled to two elders and one lay¬ 
man. All conferences having three thousand and under six 
thousand five hundred members shall be entitled to three 
elders and one layman. All conferences having six thousand 
five hundred members, and over that number, shall be entitled 
to four elders and two laymen. 

The conference also made lay delegation in the annual 
conferences mandatory instead of optional. It also authorized 
the licensing and ordaining of women for the work of the 
ministry. The publishing of a scholarly journal under the 
name of the United Brethren Quarterly Review was authorized. 
The union of the Iowa and East Des Moines conferences was 
authorized. 

Bishops Weaver, Kephart, Castle, and Dickson were re¬ 
elected, and J. W. Hott was elected Bishop for the Pacific 
Coast district. W. J. Shuey was reelected publishing agent. 
I. L. Kephart was elected editor of the Religious Telescope, 
and M. R. Drury was elected as assistant editor. D. Berger 
was reelected editor of Sunday-school literature. Other elec¬ 
tions were, J. W. Etter, editor of the Quarterly Review and 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


505 


assistant editor of Sunday-school literature; W. Mittendorf, 
editor of German periodicals; B. F. Booth, missionary secre¬ 
tary; W. McKee, missionary treasurer; John Hill, secretary 
of church erection; D. R. Miller, business manager of Union 
Biblical Seminary. 


James William Hott. 

J. W. Hott, who had served four years as missionary 
treasurer, and twelve years as editor of the Religious Telescope, 
was elected Bishop in 1889 and placed on the Pacific Coast 
district. He was well known to the Church as one of its ablest 
and most effective preachers, and as a leader and representative 
in its work and policies. Although of a different type, he was 
a worthy successor of Bishops Glossbrenner and Markwood, 
his predecessors from Virginia in the office of Bishop, com¬ 
bining the calm caution of the former with the fiery impetuosity 
of the latter. The family came to America under the German 
name Heiss, translated appropriately Hott. In genial warmth 
in the private circle and melting power in the pulpit, James W. 
Hott always was true to name and form. 

Mr. Hott was born November 15, 1844, near Winchester, 
Virginia, in the famous Shenandoah Valley. From this region 
the Church has received many preachers, a considerable 
number of them transferring their service to other parts of the 
denomination. His father, Jacob F. Hott, was a faithful 
local preacher in the United Brethren Church, and his mother 
was a devout Christian of unusual strength and purpose. Of 
the eight children of these parents, six sons and two daughters, 
four of the sons became ministers, the fifth dying while pre¬ 
paring for the ministry. J. W. Hott was a man of medium 
height and slender build, but lithe and capable of great endur¬ 
ance. He had the advantage of a good common-school 
education, and gained much benefit from his father's library 
and from association with the ministers that came to his 
father's home. He was converted at the age of thirteen. In 
1861, in his seventeenth year, he was granted quarterly confer¬ 
ence license to preach, and in 1862 was received into Virginia 
conference. This was at the beginning of the Civil War. 


506 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The Shenandoah Valley was occupied both by the Northern 
and Southern armies, the lines shifting back and forth many 
times. The divided allegiance of the people caused much 
distraction. For four years, the Virginia conference was 
divided into two sections, separate sessions being held in 
Virginia and Maryland for the respective sections. While 
Mr. Hott's labors were confined to Virginia, he was compelled 
many times to cross the lines of the two armies. Great dangers 
and hardships thus were encountered. His ministerial labors, 
however, in these years were greatly blessed. When at length 
the war was over, he with others was greatly enlisted in the 
work of rebuilding and in making a new advance. After 
serving important charges in Virginia, he was elected to the 
General Conference of 1869. He again was a delegate from 
Virginia conference in the General Conference in 1873, at 
which time he was elected treasurer of the Missionary Society. 
He was elected as a supporter of the strict law against member¬ 
ship in secret societies, the tradition of the Church and the 
prevailing convictions of the Church at the time being on that 
side. This election led to his making Dayton, Ohio, his home. 

May 31, 1864, he was married to Martha A. Ramey. To 
this union, four daughters were born in Virginia and Maryland, 
one dying soon after the removal to Dayton. The work of 
the missionary treasurer included also service for the Church 
Erection society. Though founded in 1869, it remained for 
twenty years under the charge of the officers of the Missionary 
Society. With Mr. Hott’s election to the editorship of the 
Religious Telescope in 1877, his influence upon the entire 
Church and the influence of the entire Church upon him began. 
The strong radical sentiment in him and in the Church gradu¬ 
ally underwent a change, the result of the earnest effort to 
build up, amid actual conditions, the United Brethren Church 
as an instrument in the promoting the kingdom of Christ. 
He sought to promote harmony and good-will. He made the 
Religious Telescope a pulpit for preaching the gospel and 
stimulating all of the activities of the Church during the twelve 
years that he served as editor. 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


507 


In 1881, the General Conference made him along with 
H. A. Thompson, a delegate to the Methodist Ecumenical 
conference in London. He extended his journey to Syria, 
Palestine, and Egypt, his tour resulting in the publication of 
a large volume entitled, "Journeyings in the Old World.” 
Later, he published a helpful book entitled, "Sacred hours with 
Young Christians/' and contributed also chapters and intro¬ 
ductions to books prepared by others. His part in connection 
with the revision movement between 1885 and 1889 was im¬ 
portant in promoting a successful outcome, with the greatest 
concurrence and harmony possible in the circumstances. In 
1889, he was elected Bishop, and reelected successively in 1893, 
1897, and 1901. In 1889, he would have preferred to continue 
his editorial work rather than to become Bishop for the Pacific 
Coast district. In connection with a visitation to the Pacific 
Coast in 1887, he had nearly lost his life by the overturning of a 
stage-coach, and suffered injuries from which he was years in 
recovering. The Church on the Pacific coast, weak at best, 
was torn and largely lost by the division in the Church. Yet he 
removed to his district and began the work of gathering to¬ 
gether and rebuilding. The next quadrennium, his home was 
at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, within the district agreed upon by the 
Bishops as his place of residence. In 1894, he visited the 
missions in Africa and Germany. The next General Confer¬ 
ence assigned him to the Ohio district, Dayton again becoming 
his home. Here, on August 9, 1899, his faithful wife departed 
this life. At the centennial conference at Frederick, Mary¬ 
land, in 1901, he gave an eloquent address on "The Heroism of 
the Fathers." Here, although showing signs of waning 
strength, he was reelected Bishop. May 29, 1901, he was 
united in marriage with Miss Marie Shank. He still had wide 
plans for his life and work. Yet, as the event proved, his 
physical powers were exhausted, consumed largely by the 
intensity that characterized his labors. 

His strange and prolonged affliction brought a gloom over 
his mind, impressing the great lesson that we are to form 
our estimate of men and their service in the kingdom of 
Christ by considering them when they are truly themselves 


508 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


rather than when the encroachment of disease and death has 
laid its paralyzing hand upon them. He died January 9, 1902. 
After impressive funeral services, his body was buried in Wood¬ 
land cemetery at Dayton, Ohio. He was a preacher whose 
sermons came home to the hearts of the people, a writer skilled 
in the use of idiomatic Anglo-Saxon, and a capable and efficient 
executive in the affairs of the Church. 

General Conference of 1893. 

The twenty-first General Conference met at Dayton, Ohio, 
May 11, 1893. There were present Bishops Weaver, Dickson, 
Castle, Kephart, and Hott, one hundred and twenty-four 
ministerial delegates and fifty-two lay delegates, two of the 
latter being women. 

Without previous indication, and almost without dis¬ 
cussion, the time limit of three years for pastors was removed. 
Southwest Kansas conference was constituted from a part of 
Arkansas Valley conference. Maryland conference was given 
the privilege of uniting with the Pennsylvania conference. It 
was reported to the conference that, according to the direction 
of the General Conference of 1889, a regular incorporation of 
the Church had been secured in 1890 under the name the 
"Church of the United Brethren in Christ.” The Bishops' 
report showed a membership in the Church of 204,982, a de¬ 
crease of about 2800 in the quadrennium. Owing to with¬ 
drawals from the Church, following the revision measures of 
1889, .there was a loss reported in 1890 of 10,677. The total 
loss was about 15,000, but gains made reduced the actual loss 
to the figures named; or, if the loss was greater, the gains would 
thus have been larger, making up for the difference. 

The Bishops reelected were Castle, Kephart, and Hott. 
G. A. Funkhouser was elected Bishop. On his declining to 
accept the office, J. S. Mills was elected Bishop. Bishop 
Weaver, after fifty years in the ministry and twenty-eight 
years as Bishop, was made Bishop emeritus. Following his 
laying down of official responsibility, he made a very feeling 
address. Bishop Dickson, after twenty-four years as Bishop, 
was given by resolution an expression of the high esteem in 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


509 


which he was held by the General Conference and the Church. 
He responded with a kindly and fitting address. I. L. Kep- 
hart was elected editor of the Religious Telescope, and M. R. 
Drury was elected associate editor. W. J. Shuey was elected 
publishing agent. J. W. Etter was elected editor of Sunday- 
school literature, and H. A. Thompson assistant editor. H. F. 
Shupe was elected editor of the young people's paper, after¬ 
wards named the “ Watchword." E. Light was elected editor 
of German literature. W. M. Bell was elected missionary 
secretary, and W. McKee missionary treasurer. D. R. Miller 
was elected business manager of Union Biblical Seminary. 
Robert Cowden was elected secretary of the Sabbath-school 
association. Appreciative and fitting addresses were given 
on the life and services of J. Gomer, missionary to Africa, 
Isaiah Baltzell, and B. F. Booth, secretary of the board of 
missions, all of whom had died within the quadrennium. 

Young People's Work. 

A memorial from the young people’s society of the Church, 
under the name of the Young People's Christian Union of the 
United Brethren in Christ, was presented to the conference, in 
which it was reported that said society was formed June 2-5, 
1890, and that in three years it had attained a membership of 
nearly twenty thousand. The conference heartily provided 
for a department of young people's work, and also for the 
publication of a periodical in the interest of the new depart¬ 
ment. 


Bishop Job Smith Mills. 

The retirement of Jonathan Weaver as an active Bishop 
in 1893 led to the selection of J. S. Mills for the vacant place. 
He was at the time a delegate from Iowa conference, his 
previous connections having been with Central Ohio and Scioto 
conferences. On his father's side, he was a lineal descendant 
of the Quakers that settled in Pennsylvania at the invitation 
of William Penn. His grandfather, Gideon Mills, came to 
southeastern Ohio at an early day. The home of his father, 
Lewis Mills, for the greater part of his life, was in Washington 
county, Ohio. He married for his second wife Mrs. Ann Hop- 


510 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


kins. To them were born five sons and three daughters, the 
second son being Job S., born February 28, 1848. The father 
was disfellowshipped by the Quakers for marrying “ outside of 
church.” Both parents early became connected with the 
United Brethren Church. They were devout Christians, and 
were esteemed highly by the community in which they lived. 
The subject of our sketch was born with small vitality, and it 
is said that in his first year his mother prepared his burial 
clothes three times, not thinking it possible for him to live. 
He did not learn to read until he was eleven years old, but at 
fourteen he was mentally awakened. He soon acquired what 
the common schools had to give, and then was a student for 
two years in the neighboring Bartlett Academy. Later, his 
education was carried forward by private study and through 
non-resident courses in connection with prominent educational 
institutions, he receiving on examination A. M. and Ph. D. 
degrees. He received license to exhort in 1867, quarterly 
conference license to preach in 1868, and became a member of 
Scioto conference in 1870. In 1868, he desired to be sent to 
Africa as a missionary, but on account of his delicate health 
was not appointed. In that year he entered, as junior preacher, 
on the work of the ministry, which was interrupted by some 
time given to teaching school and by one year’s study of 
anthropological subjects in New York City. In 1870, he was 
united in marriage with Miss Sarah A. Metsgar, who died in 
1874. In 1876, he was married to Miss Mary Keister, of 
Scottdale, Pennsylvania. To them were born two sons and 
three daughters. After a few years of itinerant work, he was 
made college pastor at Westerville, Ohio, in 1874, in which 
relation he continued for six years. The mental stimulation 
and opportunities for study that these years afforded could 
not have been otherwise than helpful. 

Soon after he entered the ministry he rose above his 
physical weakness. This was due to the careful attention that 
he gave to his health, and probably even more to the tremend¬ 
ous will-power that came to stand out so prominent in his life. 
Taking the place of the pale, slender boy,^was the well-pro¬ 
portioned man, six feet in height, erect, and in full vigor. 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


511 


After serving as presiding elder, and as pastor at Galion, Ohio, 
he served again as pastor at Westerville, from 1885 to 1887, 
when he became professor of English literature and rhetoric 
in Western College, at Toledo, Iowa. In 1889, he was made 
president of that institution, which position he held for three 
years. He remained in connection with the college another 
year, holding the professorship of philosophy. In this period, 
the college was passing through severe straits, the most serious 
of which was caused by the burning of the main college building 
in 1889. After his strenuous duties and devoted labors in 
connection with the college, he was elected Bishop in 1893. 
The first conferences held by him were chiefly Ohio conferences, 
with scattered conferences elsewhere. The Pacific district, 
after existing for twenty-eight years, was discontinued for the 
time as a separate district. In fact, the General Conference 
made no distinct districts, but requested that the Bishops 
should arrange to make their residence within certain zones 
and arrange to hold the conferences in rotation. Bishop Mills, 
with evident generosity, accepted the Pacific coast as his place 
of residence, making his home at Eugene, Oregon. In 1897, 
he was reelected Bishop, and assigned to the West district, 
the Bishops having a right to make exchanges in holding 
conferences. In this quadrennium, he made Denver, Colorado, 
his home. In 1905, the Pacific district was restored, with 
W. M. Bell as Bishop. In 1909, all of the Bishops were re¬ 
elected and assigned to their “old fields of labor.” 

Bishop Mills, in 1896, and again in 1903, embarked in a 
tour of visitation to the mission fields in Africa and Germany. 
In 1902, he visited Porto Rico. In 1907, he visited the missions 
in Japan, China, and the Philippines. In his visits to all these 
fields, he devoted much time, making himself familiar with all 
of the work^and endeared himself to the missionaries in the 
different fields. 

Of the preaching of Bishop Mills, H. A. Thompson, his 
personal friend, wrote: “He was not what one would call an 
eloquent preacher. His teacher’s habit was first formed, and 
that has created and molded to some extent his style of preach¬ 
ing. He is not specially hortatory nor very emotional in his 


512 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


speaking. He speaks deliberately, and at times a little hesitat¬ 
ingly.” His messages were backed by the force of clear 
thinking, full information, and an impressive personality. 

Bishop Mills, starting out under the necessity of finding 
his own way for his intellectual development, became interested 
and proficient in a wide range of subjects, which he made 
tributary to his ministerial work. He was the author of books 
under the following titles: “Africa,” “Holiness,” “Missionary 
Enterprise,” and “Family Worship,” and had other books in 
mind that he did not live to write. 

For some time before the General Conference of 1909, 
Bishop Mills felt the effects of a strange malady that was 
preying on his system. He never had overcome entirely the 
malarial poisons with which he was attacked on his first visit 
to Africa. The malady that proved fatal was largely of a 
local nature, and from the first to almost the last his vigorous 
constitution and strong will refused to yield to its inroad. 
After a hard-fought but losing battle, he died at his home at 
Annville, Pennsylvania, September 16, 1909. According to 
his own request, his body was taken for burial to Scottdale, 
Pennsylvania. 


General Conference of 1897. 

The twenty-second General Conference met at Toledo, 
Iowa, May 18, 1897. J. Weaver, Bishop emeritus, called the 
conference to order. Bishops Castle, Kephart, Hott, and Mills 
were present. Two hundred and seven delegates'were entitled 
to seats in the conference, sixty-two being lay delegates, of which 
latter number eight were women. The larger number of 
delegates in this conference was accounted for by the fact 
that in a number of the conferences there was a large increase 
in membership. The number of members in the Church had 
now come to be 238,782, representing an increase of about 
9,000 per year for the quadrennium. Arkansas Valley and 
Southwest Kansas conferences were united, as also were 
Michigan and North Michigan, and Missouri and Southern 
Missouri conferences. Suitable memorial services were held 
for T. D. Adams, W. A. Erhart, J. W. Etter, W. Mittendorf, 



NATIONAL PRESIDENTS OF THE W. M. A 














MISS VERA BUNN 





PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


513 


and D. L. Rike, the last a lay representative from Miami 
conference. The conference greatly appreciated the presence 
and words of Bishop Weaver, who was continued as Bishop 
emeritus, this proving to be the last session that the venerable 
Bishop was permitted to attend. 

Bishops Castle, Kephart, Hott, and Mills were reelected. 
Considerable change was made in the incumbents of other 
offices. W. J. Shuey was succeeded by W. R. Funk as pub¬ 
lishing agent. D. R. Miller was succeeded by W. J. Shuey as 
business manager of Union Biblical Seminary. M. R. Drury 
was succeeded by A. P. Funkhouser as associate editor of the 
Religious Telescope. Other elections resulted as follows: 
editor of the Religious Telescope, I. L. Kephart; editor of 
Sunday-school literature, H. A. Thompson; associate editor of 
Sunday-school literature, Robert Cowden; secretary of the 
Sunday-school association, Robert Cowden; editor of German 
papers, E. Lorenz; missionary secretary, W. M. Bell; treasurer 
of missionary society, W. McKee; editor of the Watchword, 
H. F. Shupe; church-erection secretary, W. M. Weekley. An 
important act of the General Conference was the providing 
for the celebration of the completing of one hundred years of 
United Brethren history. The time for the celebration was 
named as beginning with the Sunday following September 25, 
1900, and closing with the session of the General Conference in 
May, 1901. The partial celebration observed in 1874 was 
recognized as having been premature. With a view to the 
greatest interest and success in the celebration proposed, the 
place selected for the next session of the General Conference 
was Frederick, Maryland, near where the first regular annual 
conference met September 25, 1800. 

Litigation. 

At the General Conference organized by the minority in 
1889, Milton Wright, Halleck Floyd, and H. T. Barnaby were 
elected Bishops. Milton Wright also was elected publishing 
agent. The latter, on July 26, 1889, in company with William 
Dillon and C. FI. Kiracofe, presented a written demand for 
possession of the Printing Establishment, with everything 


514 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


belonging to it. W. J. Shuey, the publishing agent, of course, 
refused compliance and thus a series of legal contests was begun. 
To meet the situation, the trustees of the Printing Establish¬ 
ment instituted proceedings for quieting of title. December 4, 
1890, in the common pleas court of Montgomery county, Ohio, 
by consent of both parties, a pro forma decree was entered in 
favor of the plaintiffs (the liberals), from which an appeal was 
taken by the defendants to the circuit court. The formal trial 
before the three judges of the circuit court began June 17,1891. 
D. Berger, in his History of the United Brethren Church, gives 
the following statement of the hearing before the court: 

Counsel of high distinction for ability was retained on 
both sides, the attorneys for the Church being Hon. Lewis B. 
Gunckel and Hon. John A. McMahon. Among the attorneys 
for the defendants was Judge William Lawrence, for whom 
special eminence as an ecclesiastical lawyer was claimed. Nine 
days were spent in the trial, seven in presenting documentary 
ana oral testimony, and two in argument. Among the wit¬ 
nesses for the plaintiffs were Bishop J. Weaver, Bishop E. B. 
Kephart, Professor A. W. Drury, Professor J. P. Landis, 
Rev. W. J. Shuey, Rev. D. Berger, Rev. William McKee, 
Rev. B. F. Booth, and Rev. G. M. Matthews; for the radicals, 
Bishop Milton Wright, Rev. C. H. Kiracofe, Rev. Halleck 
Floyd, and others. A number of depositions were introduced 
for the Church, those of Dr. Philip Schaff, of Union Theological 
Seminary, New York City, Dr. James Strong, of Drew Theo¬ 
logical Seminary, and Bishop J. M. Walden, of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church; for the seceders, those of Dr. Herrick John¬ 
son, of Chicago, Dr. J. G. Carson, of Xenia, Ohio, Dr. Willis K. 
Beecher and Doctor Sprague, of Auburn, New York, and Dr. 
Lewis Davis. 

The result of the trial was a unanimous decision in favor 
of the Church, denominated as the plaintiffs. The defendants 
took an appeal to the supreme court of Ohio. In the course 
of business before the court, June 13, 1895, finally was made 
the date for the hearing of the case. After a thorough con¬ 
sideration of the case, the court put its full approval on the 
findings and conclusions of the circuit court, and issued its 
decree in accord with the same. 

Before the Publishing House case finally was decided, 
suits for the possession of local property were instituted in 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


515 


different parts of the Church. The Publishing House lent 
assistance to those seeking to hold such property for the Church 
by supplying literature, advice, and legal aid. If such cases 
had been decided unfavorably, it would have weakened the 
Publishing House case itself, and resulted in general distraction 
and loss. Outside of the case before the supreme court in 
Ohio, just named, in seven other States cases were carried 
through the lower courts to the supreme court. Decisions 
in favor of the claims of the Church were rendered by the 
supreme courts of Indiana, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Illinois, 
Missouri, and California; also, in the court of appeals in the 
Dominion of Canada. The decision of the Michigan supreme 
court was favorable to the radicals, and on a rehearing the 
result was the same. In Michigan, there had been early laws 
favorable to the control of property by majorities of local 
bodies, said to have been enacted against the domination of the 
Roman Catholic hierarchy. While the laws had disappeared, 
there were nevertheless court decisions that continued to have 
an influence. Thus, the effect of the Michigan supreme court 
decision was practically to leave church property with the 
majority in the various local congregations. A later decision 
in a Michigan federal court was in favor of the liberal side. 

A Federal Case. 

A case of a great deal of interest, and of serious concern 
for a time, was filed by the radicals in the federal court at 
Cincinnati. A demurrer on the part of the liberals was over¬ 
ruled by Judge William H. Taft in May, 1893, but, on hearing 
the case on its merits, he rendered, May 24, 1897, a decree in 
favor of the liberals. In his decision he used the following 
language: 

The case on substantially the same facts has been pre¬ 
sented to many supreme courts of this country, and in nearly 
all of them the decision has been in favor of that party repre¬ 
sented by the respondents in this case, and which has come to 
be known as the party of the Liberals. While these decisions 
do not all proceed on exactly the same grounds, they, all of 
them, rest on the authority of the leading case of Watson vs. 
Jones, 13 Wallace 679. Upon the authority of that case, 


516 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


principally, I have come to the same conclusion, and hold 
that that party known as the Liberals, the party of the re¬ 
spondents herein, is legally the Church of the United Brethren 
in Christ, and that therefore the respondents as trustees are 
lawfully in possession of the church, and are lawfully discharg¬ 
ing the obligations of their trust. 

A decree must therefore be entered dismissing the bill at 
the cost of the complainants. 

Notwithstanding the decision was so clear and decisive, 
an appeal was taken to the United States court of appeals, 
Horace Harmon Lurton, later appointed associate justice of 
the Supreme court of the United States, being circuit judge, 
and judges Clark and Severens, district judges. Judge Lurton 
delivered the opinion of the court March 7, 1899. This 
opinion was one of the most thorough and representative of 
all those rendered in the entire course of the litigation in re¬ 
gard to the rights of the contending parties. Recognizing 
the obscurities and inartificial character of the Constitution, 
and the fact that it was adopted by the General Conference, 
the opinion gave the General Conference credit for seeking a 
reasonable and feasible way to secure amendments under the 
terms of the Constitution; or, if that ground should not be 
conceded, the restriction against change of the Constitution, 
such as that brought about by the acts of the General Confer¬ 
ences of 1885 and 1889, might well be considered in the light 
of the fact that the Constitution itself had originated by the 
act of the General Conference of 1841. As to the Confession 
of Faith, the Constitution made it unalterable by any “rule or 
ordinance/' such as might be adopted by a “legislative body," 
whereas, the revised Confession was the result of an act of the 
Church. In any event, the opinion indicated that the de¬ 
cision of the General Conference, the highest judicial body of 
the Church, was decisive in the case. The decision of the 
court declared: “The case of Watson vs. Jones is of binding 
and conclusive authority upon this court. There can be no 
doubt that the facts of this record bring this case distinctly 
and unequivocally within the principles of that case." One 
section quoted from the decision in the case of Watson vs. 
Jones is the following: 


PERIOD FROM 1881 TO 1897 


517 


In this class of cases, we think the rule of action which 
should govern the civil courts, founded in the broad and sound 
view of the relations of church and state, under our system of 
laws, and supported by a preponderating weight of judicial 
authority, is, that, whenever the questions of discipline, or of 
faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided 
by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter 
has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions 
as final, and as binding on them, in their application to the 
case before them. 

It is no wonder that W. J. Shuey, amid the burdens and 
anxieties that fell so heavily on him in the course of the long- 
drawn-out litigation, was accustomed to say, “And blessed be 
Watson versus Jones.” 


Cost and Gain. 

The total cost of litigation, as borne by the Publishing 
House, was $35,510.06. Much money was raised locally in 
meeting cases where local property was involved. As costs 
in the courts were thrown mostly on the radical party, the 
expense on that side must have been large. Heaviest of all 
was the cost of time, anxiety, and effort on the part of all that 
were in any way drawn into the case. But were there no 
compensations? The Church was given clear and feasible 
methods for making changes in the Constitution and Confession 
of Faith, such as new conditions and occasions may require. 
Through the long and varied course of litigation, more than in 
any other example in the history of American churches, the 
relations of civil law to ecclesiastical conditions have been 
clarified and made a matter of public knowledge. The judge 
that gave the first decision among the many that were ren¬ 
dered said, after having rendered his decision, that “the 
Church had nothing to fear except from the density of the 
ignorance of the average judge as to ecclesiastical questions.” 

United Brethren Church (Old Constitution) 

As estimated from the liberal side, the loss in church 
membership, due to the separation taking place in 1889, was 
about 15,000, this number, perhaps, being increased to 20,000 
by those that went to various churches or that gave up all 


518 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


church connection in consequence of the turmoil and un¬ 
certainty that came to exist. On the radical side, the number 
of preachers enrolled was disproportionately large, because of 
the large number of the older preachers and local preachers that 
held to that side. Yet, aside from the bishops already named, 
a number of the strong preachers, Boanerges of the earlier 
period, such as J. K. Alwood, I. Kretzinger, J. Kenoyer, W. S. 
Titus and others that might easily be named, and a considerable 
number of earnest younger preachers cast their lot on the 
radical side. Of the four bishops first elected, M. Wright, 
H. T. Barnaby and H. Floyd, served until 1905, and H. J. 
Becker until 1893. Others serving as bishops were William 
Dillon, 1893 to 1897; H. L. Barkley, 1897 to 1913; C. L. Wood, 
1905 to 1920; 0. G. Alwood, 1905 to 1921;F.L. Hoskins, 1905—; 
C. A. Mummart and H. C. Mason, 1921—. Of the earlier 
ministers, J. Kenoyer died 1906; I. Kretzinger, 1894; W. S. 
Titus, 1905; J. K. Alwood, 1908. Of the bishops, M. Wright, 
H. T. Barnaby and H. Floyd, died in 1917. 

In 1900 prominent officials in the church were William 
Dillon, editor of the Christian Conservator; M. F. Keiter, 
publishing agent; D. K. Flickinger, missionary secretary; 
S. A. Steman, missionary and church-erection treasurer; C. H. 
Kiracofe, secretary of education and president of Central 
College; W. H. Clay, general Sabbath-school secretary and 
treasurer; H. J. Becker, missionary and church-erection agent. 
Besides there were regular boards for the different church de¬ 
partments. There was also a woman’s missionary association. 
Thirty-one annual conferences were listed, with 471 itinerant 
and 199 local preachers, 26,643 church members, 479 church 
houses valued at $508,043. The 1923 Year book gives the 
number of conferences as 25; active itinerants, 184; inactive 
itinerants, 82; superannuated itinerants, 37; local preachers, 
71; church members, 19,575; church houses, 401, valued at 
$949,705. Huntington College and the Publishing House, 
both located at Huntington, Indiana, make a good showing in 
buildings and the work being done. The missionary work 
carried on exhibits, creditable activity and success. 


CHAPTER XIII 

PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


General Conference of 1901—Representation in the General Conference— 
Centennial Features—Bishop Mathews—General Conference of 1905— 
Church Union—Bishops Weekley, Bell and Carter—General Confer¬ 
ence of 1909—Church Union Again—General Conference of 1913— 
Church Union—Bishops H. H. Fout, C. J. Kephart and A. T. 
Howard—General Conference of 1917—A New Board— 
Church Union Halted—Bishop W. H. Washinger—General 
Conference of 1921—New Measures—Bishop A. R. Clippin- 


ger—Final Survey 

General Conference of 1901. 



HE twenty-third General Conference met at Frederick, 


Maryland, May 9, 1901. Bishops Castle, Kephart, 


Hott, and Mills were present and presided. Ex-bishop 
Dickson was given a place of honor on the platform. 
One hundred and forty ministerial delegates, including one 
woman, and sixty-two lay delegates, including two women, 
were members of the conference. The church membership now 
numbered 243,841. The increase for the quadrennium was 
but 5,059, due probably to a closer revising of the records, the 
diversion of attention to the war with Spain, and the loss of 
3,000 members in Africa through the African uprising. A. P. 
Funkhouser had resigned as associate editor of the Religious 
Telescope early in the quadrennium, and G. M. Mathews had 
been appointed to the place. E. Lorenz, the editor of the Ger¬ 
man papers having died, A. Schmidt and H. J. Fischer had 
been appointed in his stead. 

Bishop Weaver had died at his home in Dayton, Ohio, 
February 6, 1901. Bishop D. Shuck likewise had died in the 
quadrennium. Among others, members of former General 
Conferences or members elected to the present one, that had 
died, were, C. A. Burtner, of Pennsylvania conference, George 
Sickafoose, of St. Joseph conference, Joseph Caulker, of the 
African mission, and B. F. McClelland, a lay delegate from 


519 


520 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Iowa conference. Those named along with others that had 
died were remembered tenderly in a suitable memorial service. 
Of course, the seven missionaries martyred in Africa in 1898 
were given tender recognition. 

The Bishops' address, read by Bishop Mills, was the most 
comprehensive that thus far had been presented to a General 
Conference. There seemed to be a general impression that, 
with the beginning of a new century of human history, and the 
beginning of a new century in the history of the Church, a new 
survey should be made of the opportunities and obligations 
presenting themselves. Clearer and more uniform plans, and 
a stricter standardization of service and of results, began to 
characterize more and more the acts of this and succeeding 
General Conferences. In this line was the appointing of a 
commission on Christian stewardship, and the providing of a 
general church treasurer, who should act for various societies 
and institutions. The Church already had reached the end of 
the multiplying of small annual conferences. At the first 
session of one of the annual conferences, only two members 
had been present, one acting as chairman and the other as 
secretary. They went through the full annual conference 
program, and among other things proposed was the founding 
of an '‘institution of learning." After pro rata representation 
was adopted, there was no longer the motive to maintain a 
large number of small conferences for the sake of a larger 
number of representatives in the General Conference. Besides 
the previous spur to spread out was modified or balanced by 
the stronger motive to build up stronger and more permanent 
local churches, and to give the annual conferences a more 
perfect autonomy, and more intensively to cultivate the terri¬ 
tory already occupied. 

A number of changes were made in annual conference 
boundaries. They were specially significant for some of the 
older parts of the Church. Between Ohio and Indiana and 
between these states and Michigan all boundaries crossing 
State lines were wiped out. The Central Ohio, Auglaize and 
North Ohio conferences were eliminated. Some conferences 
both lost and gained by the changes made. The St. Joseph 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


521 


conference gained in Indiana but lost in Michigan; the San¬ 
dusky conference received the largest gains. There were left 
four conferences in Ohio. In Illinois, the Rock River and the 
Central Illinois conferences were united under the name of 
Northern Illinois conference. The East Pennsylvania and 
the Eastern conferences were united, as likewise were the 
Pennsylvania and Maryland conferences. The Louisiana con¬ 
ference was recognized. Other changes in boundaries and names 
were made with a view to greater simplicity and convenience. 

Representation. 

The most significant act of this General Conference, the 
act, too, that received the most serious attention, was that 
which made the number of lay delegates in the General Con¬ 
ference equal to the number of ministerial delegates. The 
vote stood 126 for and 42 against, a number of the lay delegates 
voting in the negative. 

A further step toward a more complete ratio representation 
was made according to the following resolution: 

That ail conferences having less than one thousand mem¬ 
bers shall be entitled to two delegates, one ministerial and one 
lay; one thousand and less than three thousand, two ministerial 
and two lay; three thousand and less than six thousand, three 
ministerial and three lay; six thousand and less than ten 
thousand, four ministerial and four lay; ten thousand and less 
than fifteen thousand, five ministerial and five lay; fifteen 
thousand and less than twenty thousand, six ministerial and 
six lay; and all over twenty thousand, seven ministerial and 
seven lay. 

Prior to the election of Bishops, Bishop Castle made a 
statement to the conference, in which he asked that he be not 
considered for further official duties and responsibilities as 
Bishop. He spoke of his diffidence at first, of his impaired 
health, and of his conviction that the Church should have 
better service than he would be able to render. The confer¬ 
ence, however, seemed to be of a different mind. The first 
ballot resulted in the reelection of all of the Bishops—Mills, 
Kephart, Hott, and Castle. The result of the other elections 
was, publishing agent, W. R. Funk; editor of Religious Tele- 


522 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


scope, I. L. Kephart; associate editor of Religious Telescope, 
G. M. Mathews; editor of Watchword, H. F. Shupe; editor of 
Sunday-school literature, H. H. Fout; missionary secretary, 
W. M. Bell; Church-erection secretary, W. M. Weekley; 
church treasurer, W. McKee; secretary of Sunday-school 
association, R. Cowden; business manager of Union Biblical 
Seminary, C. M. Brooke. 

Centennial Features. 

We cannot turn away from the historic conference of 1901 
without noticing the centennial features that it included. The 
old Fredericktown, or Frederick City, was now plain Frederick. 
Here Otterbein served five years as pastor of the Reformed 
congregation, in which time a substantial church and also a 
parsonage were built. The historic town was in the midst of a 
wide territory in which his evangelistic labors and those of his 
co-workers were bestowed. Here is the grave of Francis Scott 
Key, the author of the “Star Spangled Banner,” who sometimes 
served as a Sankey in singing along with the German evange¬ 
lists, and also the grave of Barbara Frietchie, immortalized by 
Whittier, because of an incident which, however, did not occur. 
The greatest interest was in the fact that two and a quarter 
miles west of Frederick is the old Peter Kemp home, where the 
first regular annual conference, in the unbroken series of annual 
conferences, met September 25, 1800. In consequence of the 
facts and associations named, a large number of persons from 
various parts of the Church journeyed to Frederick, where a 
regular centennial program was carried out in connection 
with the sessions of the General Conference. Able and inspir¬ 
ing addresses were given, by persons previously selected, on 
the past history, and on the outlook and possibilities of the 
Church in the years to come. A pilgrimage was made to the 
old Kemp home, where suitable exercises were held. An ex¬ 
cursion was made to Baltimore, where impressive services were 
held in the old Otterbein church, and at the tomb of Otterbein. 
Prompted by all of these events, in 1913, a beautiful modern 
monument was erected at the head of Otterbein’s grave. 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


523 


The following is the program of Centennial exercises, the 
addresses afterward being published in a Centenary volume: 

PART I. 

The Making of Our Denomination. 

Otterbein and His Colaborers_A. W. Drury 

Mysticism in the Origin and Growth of the United Brethren in 

Christ_Bishop J. S. Mills 

Historic Places and Epochs_C. I. B. Brane 

PART II. 

Church Evangelism and Extension. 

The Heroism of Our Fathers_^_Bishop J. W. Hott 

The Church as an Agency for the Spiritual Regeneration of 

Man__R. J. White 

The Concentration of Our Church Forces_W. M. Weekley 

The Next Step in Sunday-school Progress_H. A. Thompson 

PART III. 

The Church and Education. 

The History and Development of Education in Our Church. 


Bishop E. B. Kephart 
The Imperative Need of a Cultured Ministry, G. A. Funkhouser 

The Mission of the Denominational College_T. J. Sanders 

The Future of Our Colleges_L. Bookwalter 

PART IV. 


The Nineteenth Century as a Preparation for the 
Twentieth. 

The Relation of Our Publishing Interests to the Life and 

Growth of Our Denomination_W. R. Funk 

The Outlook for Missions after a Century_William M. Bell 

The Adaptation and Equipment of the Church of the Twentieth 
Century_I. L. Kephart 

PART V. 

Jubilee Celebration at Otterbein Church 
Baltimore, Maryland, May 4,1901. 

Opening Address_Bishop N. Castle 

Address of Welcome_A. Schmidt 

Centenary Poem_Mrs. L. K. Miller 

The Power and Influence of a Single Life_W. J. Shuey 

Points to be Emphasized by the Children of Otterbein. 

H. S. Gabel 

Our Young People in the New Century.._J. P. Landis 

At the Tomb of Otterbein-G. M. Mathews 


















524 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


George Martin Mathews. 

The death of Bishop Hott, January 9, 1902, early in the 
quadrennium 1901 to 1905, called into action a provision of the 
General Conference of 1901 for the choosing of a Bishop in 
case of a vacancy. Following the spirit of this provision, a 
letter ballot of the members of that General Conference was 
taken, which showed a preference for G. M. Mathews as the 
one to fill the vacancy, whereupon he was declared by the 
board of Bishops as duly chosen Bishop. He entered on his 
new work, July 1, 1902. 

G. M. Mathews was born on the Mathews homestead, 
about fifteen miles east of Cincinnati, Ohio, August 22, 1848. 
His father was of German and his mother of English stock. The 
family dwelling was a double log house. The family possessions 
were meager, and debt caused by trusting too much in others 
was a source of continued embarrassment. Yet, sturdy quali¬ 
ties, uprightness, industry, and hospitality characterized both 
the father and the mother in this family. George was the 
eighth in a family of nine children. The father was converted 
when about forty years of age, soon after the building of the 
“old stone church/' in 1844. Here the parents became mem¬ 
bers and faithful supporters of the United Brethren Church. 
After securing the meager advantages of the common schools, 
George at the age of seventeen, entered Otterbein University, 
from which he graduated in 1870. In uncertainty as to what 
his chief life-work should be, he began to teach school, in which 
work he continued for about seven years. On Christmas day, 
1872, he was married to Miss Clara Belle Hopper. One son 
was born to this union. He planned to enter the legal profes¬ 
sion and began to study law, but his way seemed to be closed. 
In his nineteenth year, while a student at Otterbein University, 
he was converted. While teaching school near his home, he 
had taken part, though diffident at first, in all kinds of religious 
work. Finally, without consulting him, his home class recom¬ 
mended him for license to preach. He received quarterly 
conference license in 1878, and was received into Miami con¬ 
ference the following year. His next step was to enter Lane 
Theological Seminary, at Cincinnati, as this Seminary was con- 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


525 


venient to his home. Here he studied for two years, a part of 
which time he served a circuit in Miami conference. Desiring 
to complete his course in the seminary of his own Church, he 
entered Union Biblical Seminary in 1881, graduating the fol¬ 
lowing year. He served as pastor of the High Street church 
from 1881 to 1884, when he entered upon a pastorate of five 
years of the Summit Street Church, in which time he received 
into the church five hundred and thirty-three members. 
After five years as presiding elder, followed by four years as 
pastor of First Church, Dayton, he was made associate editor 
of the Religious Telescope in October, 1898. When in 1894 the 
United Brethren Review was in danger of being discontinued 
because of cost of publication, he assumed the work of editor 
without compensation, in which work he continued until 1899. 

At first made Bishop by appointment, as before stated, he 
was regularly elected Bishop by the General Conference of 
1905, and reelected successively in 1909, 1913, and 1917. His 
depreciation of himself was more than counterbalanced by the 
cordiality and esteem everywhere given him. Through all of 
his service as Bishop, he was designated as in charge of the 
Central district, though this district included different terri¬ 
tory at different times. In his first and last terms, his residence 
was in Dayton, and in the three intermediate terms his residence 
was in Chicago. After the death of Bishop Mills, in 1909, he 
shared with the other Bishops in serving the conferences of the 
East district. He served on nearly all of the Church boards, 
and besides was prominently connected with the religious and 
social movements of the country in general. He was a member 
of the executive committee of the Federal Council of Churches, 
and was one of the vice presidents of the National Anti-Saloon 
League. 

When his death, for which there was no definite anticipa¬ 
tion or forewarning, was announced, there was not only a deep 
sense of public loss, but a widespread feeling of personal grief. 
After a short illness, he died at his home in Dayton, Ohio, 
April 3, 1921. After tender and appropriate funeral services, 
his body was placed away in beautiful Woodland Cemetery, 
Dayton, which has come to be the resting place for so many of 


526 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the loved and honored dead of the Church. The beautiful 
granite marker is a love tribute of friends, sufficient funds also 
being received to place an oil painting in Bonebrake Seminary, 
in recognition of his service as president of the Seminary board 
of Directors. 

What Bishop Mathews was personally, was largely the 
source of his influence and effectiveness. He was distinguished 
for the tenderness and strength of his emotional nature, at once 
genuinely human and thoroughly Christian. But the prompt¬ 
ing of a strong emotional nature found a clear and ready intel¬ 
lect and a resolute will to carry out its behests. He was the 
author of books entitled, “Christ in the Life of Today,” and 
“Justification.” The power of his life will be continued because 
of his personal touch upon the lives of others, and because of 
the movements and institutions that he helped to plan and 
foster. 


General Conference of 1905. 

The twenty-fourth General Conference met May 11, 1905, 
at Topeka, Kansas, the session being held in the hall of the 
house of representatives in the State capitol. This was the 
first General Conference to convene beyond the Missouri 
river. Bishops Castle, Kephart, Mills, and Mathews were 
present and presided. Besides the four Bishops, the members 
of the conference numbered 269, 135 of whom were ministers, 
and 134 lay delegates, 25 of the latter being women. This was 
the first conference in which the lay delegates were to be equal 
in number to the ministerial. The lack of one lay delegate was 
due to there being no lay delegate from Japan. The Church 
membership numbered 253,641, an increase for the quadren- 
nium of a little less than ten thousand. 

Illinois and Northern Illinois conferences were authorized 
to unite, and Ontario was granted the right to enter into a 
union with the Congregationalists in Canada. Georgia and 
Kentucky conferences were recognized. 

Prominent members of the conference and of the Church 
that had died in the quadrennium were Bishop Hott, J. W. 
Howe, a ministerial delegate from Virginia, John Dodds, a 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


527 


layman from Miami conference, and C. Howard, a layman from 
Michigan conference. For these and others, impressive mem¬ 
orial services were held. More than at any preceding General 
Conference, the election of general officers held a prominent 
place. 

The addresses of Bishops Castle and Kephart declining to 
assume further official responsibility gave to the Conference an 
open view of their heart purpose and life of service, and awak¬ 
ened a tender response from the members of the Conference. 
Both by the unanimous voice of the Conference were made 
Bishops emeriti. William McKee, who had served twenty-eight 
years as treasurer of the missionary society, the preceding four 
years having the larger work of general church treasurer, 
gave likewise some account of his stewardship, and stated that 
he did not desire reelection. 

After much previous consideration and some discussion 
on the conference floor, it was decided that, instead of one 
home and foreign missionary society, there should be two sep¬ 
arate societies in charge of the home and foreign fields, respec¬ 
tively, and all changes necessary to bring about this result 
were authorized. 

The desire for a Bishop on the Pacific Coast and the 
opening up of what seemed to be a hopeful field in the South, 
led to the decision that five Bishops should be elected. On the 
first ballot, J. S. Mills, G. M. Mathews, W. M. Weekley, W. M. 
Bell, and T. C. Carter were elected, the two latter being ap¬ 
pointed respectively to the Pacific Coast and Southern dis¬ 
tricts. Other elections resulted as follows: editor of Religious 
Telescope, I. L. Kephart, with J. M. Phillippi associate editor; 
editor of Watchword, H. F. Shupe; editor of Sunday-school 
literature, H. H. Fout, with W. 0. Fries associate editor; 
editor of United Brethren Review, H. A. Thompson; foreign 
missionary secretary, S. S. Hough; home missionary secretary, 
C. Whitney; general church treasurer, L. 0. Miller; church- 
erection secretary, H. S. Gabel; secretary of Sunday-school 
association, R. Cowden; business manager of Union Biblical 
Seminary, C. M. Brooke. 


528 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The representation in the General Conference was reduced. 
Conferences having 2,000 members or less were allowed one 
ministerial and one lay delegate; those having from 2,000 to 
4,000, two ministerial and two lay; those having 4,000 to 8,000 
three ministerial and three lay; those having 8,000 to 14,000, 
four ministerial and four lay; over 14,000 five ministerial and 
five lay. 


Church Union. 

The outstanding act of the General Conference was the 
approval of a syllabus looking to a closer association or a 
federation or an organic union, according as different members 
viewed it, of the United Brethren, Methodist Protestant, and 
Congregational Churches. Strictly, the syllabus called for the 
first step only, and yet with a view to other steps, if acquaint¬ 
ance and trial should approve the same. While the splendid 
plans adopted failed to be carried out, they constituted more 
than a passing episode, and because of the bright vision they 
presented, if for no other reason, they are entitled to some 
attention and space in this connection. The General Confer¬ 
ence of 1901 had initiated the movement by appointing the 
Bishops a committee to confer with other churches with 
reference to a union of churches. 

The following is the syllabus referred to, adopted at 
Washington, D. C., in May, 1903: 

To the National Council of the Congregational churches, 
the General Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church 
and the General Conference of the United Brethren in Christ: 
Dear Brethren: 

The undersigned have been acting as a committee under 
the authority of your respective bodies for the purpose of 
considering the question of uniting these bodies. 

The first meeting was held in Pittsburgh, April 22, and 23, 
1903, where the whole question was thoroughly discussed, 
both in conferences between the committees meeting each 
other separately and in joint conferences. 

A committee was appointed at this meeting to formulate 
the details of the plan agreed upon and report to the full com¬ 
mittee. 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


529 


This sub-committee, consisting of five from each committee, 
met in Washington, D. C., May 27 and 28, 1903, and agreed 
upon a report to the full committee, which was called for its 
final meeting at Pittsburgh, July 1,1903. At this meeting, the 
various questions relating to the matter of union were gone over 
thoroughly, and the committee now respectfully submits the 
results of their deliberations: 

1. We are agreed that the formulated statements of 
doctrine as held by each of these bodies at present are essen¬ 
tially the same; and we affirm them all as expressing “the 
truth as it is in Jesus/' 

2. We are agreed that these bodies shall retain their 
present name and their autonomy in respect to all local affairs, 
but that they add to their official title the words, “In affiliation 
with the General Council of the United Churches." 

3. We recommend that these bodies authorize the crea¬ 
tion of a General Council, composed of representatives elected 
from their respective bodies, on the basis of one representative 
for every five thousand members. 

4. The powers of the General Council shall be advisory, 
and any recommendation it may make shall be referred to the 
constituent bodies for approval. 

5. A committee of three from each of the general bodies 
represented shall be appointed to arrange for the time and 
place of the first meeting of the General Council. 

6. At the first session of the General Council, a temporary 
organization shall be effected by the election of a chairman and 
secretary; and the Council itself shall determine the officers it 
may need and the manner of permanent organization it may 
prefer. 

7. The purposes of the General Council shall be: 

(1) To present, so far as we possibly can, a realization of 
that unity which seems so greatly desired by Christian churches. 

(2) To promote a better knowledge and a closer fellow¬ 
ship among the Christian bodies thus uniting. 

(3) To secure the coordination and unification of the 
three bodies in evangelistic, educational, and missionary work. 

(4) To adopt a plan by which the three bodies may be 
brought into coordinate activity and organic unity, a unity 
representing some form of connectionalism. 

(5) To prevent the unnecessary multiplication of church¬ 
es; to unite weak churches of the same neighborhood wherever 
it is practicable, and to invite and encourage the affiliation 
with this Council of other Christian bodies cherishing a kindred 
faith and purpose., 


530 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Much opposition in the General Conference to the adop¬ 
tion of the syllabus was expected, and some of it came strongly 
to the front, but the vote as taken showed two hundred and 
fifty-three affirmative votes and five negative votes. The next 
step was the calling of a General Council, which met in Dayton, 
Ohio, February 7, 1906, with a roll of more than one hundred 
delegates from the Congregationalists, about fifty from the 
United Brethren, and about twenty-five from the Methodist 
Protestants. To the surprise of many, the Methodist Protes¬ 
tants on the first day of the session presented a proposition 
that the representatives of the three denominations begin their 
deliberations with the declaration that “their first and chief 
business is to provide for the organic union of these three 
bodies.” The declaration was approved by the Council. A 
form of polity was adopted providing for annual conferences 
and a national conference, under the name the United Church. 
Provision was made for co-ordinating missionary, publishing, 
educational, and Sunday-school work. The statement of 
doctrine adopted as being an effort to form a creed out of whole 
cloth, and said to be the first creed with an article on social 
justice, may well be given entire. It is as follows: 

We, the representatives of the Congregational churches, 
the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, and the Methodist 
Protestant Church, rejoice at this time to enter into union 
with one another, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
in the love of God, and for the fellowship in the Holy Spirit. 
In this solemn act of faith and obedience towards the great 
Head of the church, we do most humbly and confidently make 
confession of our faith, and heartily renew the consecration of 
our lives to him and to the service of mankind. 

1. Our bond of union consists in that inward and per¬ 
sonal faith in Jesus Christ as our divine Savior and Lord on 
which all our churches are founded; also, in our acceptance of 
the Holy Scriptures as the inspired source of our faith and 
the supreme standard of Christian truth; and, further, in our 
consent to the teaching of the ancient symbols of the un¬ 
divided church, and to that substance of Christian doctrine 
which is common to the creeds and confessions which we have 
inherited from the past. But we humbly depend, as did our 
fathers, on the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead 
us into all truth. 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


531 


2. We believe that God, the Father and Lord of all, did 
send his Son Jesus Christ to redeem us from sin and death by 
the perfect obedience to his holy will in life, by the sacrifice 
of himself on the cross, and by his glorious resurrection from 
the dead. 

3. We believe that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God and 
of Christ, moves in the hearts of men, calling them through the 
gospel to repentance and faith, awakening in them spiritual 
sorrow for past sin and confidence in the mercy of God, to¬ 
gether with new desires and a new power to obey his will. 

4. We believe that those of the sons of men, who, hearing 
God's call of divine love, do heartily put their trust in the 
Savior whom his love provided, are assured by his Word of his 
most fatherly forgiveness, his free and perfect favor, the 
presence of his Spirit in their hearts, and of a blessed immor¬ 
tality. 

5. We believe that all who are through faith the children 
of God constitute the church of Christ, the spiritual body of 
which he is the Head, that he has appointed them to proclaim 
the gospel to all mankind, to manifest in their character and 
conduct the fruit of his Spirit, that he has granted them freedom 
to create such officers and institutions as may in each genera¬ 
tion serve unto those ends, and that for the comfort of our 
faith he has given to this church the sacred ordinances of bap¬ 
tism and the Lord's Supper. 

6. We believe that according to Christ's law, men of the 
Christian faith exist for the service of man, not only in holding 
forth the word of life, but in the support of works and institu¬ 
tions of pity and charity, in the maintenance of human free¬ 
dom, and the deliverance of all those that are oppressed, in the 
enforcement of civic justice, and the rebuke of all unrighteous¬ 
ness. 

Possessed of these convictions, both as truths which we 
do most firmly hold, and as acts of faith which spring from our 
hearts, we do, therefore, in the happy consummation of this 
union, and in the name of all the churches which we represent, 
commit ourselves, body, soul, and spirit, to the faith, love, and 
service of him who made us and saved us, the Everlasting God, 
our Father, Redeemer, and Lord. To him be ascribed all 
praise and dominion, and glory, world without end, amen. 

A Second General Council. 

The largeness of the work was such that much remained 
to be taken up by the General Council at its next session, 
beginning March 19, 1907, at Chicago. Here the celestial 


532 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


dream began to be shattered. When it came to vested interests, 
co-ordination of work, connectionalism, and so forth, the 
Congregationalists could be only Congregationalists and the 
United Brethren could be only United Brethren. Possibly 
usage and association occasioned the greatest difficulty. It 
must be said that the Methodist Protestants stood best by the 
purposes first announced, but even they could not have carried 
with them all of their churches, especially in the South. Efforts 
were made to continue or revive the movement by representa¬ 
tives of the United Brethren and Methodist Protestant churches 
down to 1917. 

Bishops Weekley, Bell, and Carter. 

The pen hesitates at the attempt to sketch the lives of 
living persons. They might hush the word of praise even 
though well deserved, and they surely would forbid the en¬ 
comium that would seem to imply that their work was complet¬ 
ed and their day ended. Yet some outlines that may be 
filled in and supplemented later may meanwhile have an 
interest and serve a purpose. 

The people of western Virginia, which became a State 
under the name of West Virginia in 1863, were drawn into the 
hills and valleys of this mountainous territory from the evener 
territory round about, at first largely from Old Virginia. 
They were poor, honest, and generous, generally with a whole¬ 
some respect for religion. In Tyler county, of what is now 
West Virginia, W. M. Weekley was born September 18, 1851. 
His parents, Daniel and Elizabeth Weekley, were members of 
the United Brethren Church, faithful Christians in their home 
and active workers in the church. At the age of fourteen he 
was converted and became a member of the United Brethren 
Church, and soon was made class steward and then class 
leader. In 1869, he received quarterly conference license to 
preach. In 1870, he was placed on a circuit as junior preacher, 
and in 1871 he was received into the Parkersburg conference, 
later called the West Virginia conference. He literally wanted 
to preach. His health was poor, his early death being predicted; 
but horseback riding, singing, and enthusiastic devotion to his 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


533 


work, gave to him sound health and a commanding physique. 
Of course, he studied, practiced preaching in the forest, bought 
books and more books, attended ministerial institutes and 
helped in them. He had the stimulation and support of able, 
faithful, and courageous co-laborers. Despite small pay, and 
dangers and hardships in storms and swollen rivers, and in 
mud and ice, he went forward as circuit preacher, presiding 
elder, academy agent, temperance worker, member of the 
General Conferences of 1881, 1885, and 1889, with many 
relationships outside of his own church. This jumble of a 
description is intended to cover his ministry of “twenty years 
on horseback,” up to 1890, when he transferred to Rock River 
conference, in Illinois, becoming another of the many preachers 
that went from the Virginias to reinforce the ministry in other 
parts of the Church. He was married to Miss Rosa L. Wilson 
in 1875. To them were born three daughters and one son, the 
latter dying in infancy. In 1883, his wife died, and in 1885 he 
was married to Miss Emma Gibson. He was pastor and pre¬ 
siding elder in the Rock River conference for five years. In 
connection with the Parliament of Religions in Chicago, in 1893, 
he represented, as secretary, the United Brethren Church. 
In 1895, he was chosen secretary of the Church Erection 
society, to fill a vacancy created by the resignation of C. I. B. 
Brane. In this office he was notably successful, and in this 
position he was continued by the General Conferences of 
1897 and 1901. In his successful efforts in building up this 
important department in the work of the Church, he became 
widely acquainted with the membership and ministry of the 
Church. More than anyone else, beginning with 1903, he 
prompted the steps leading to the effort to unite the Methodist 
Protestant, Congregational, and United Brethren Churches. 

Elected Bishop in 1905, and assigned to the West district, 
he sought to do what as presiding elder in West Virginia and 
Illinois he had succeeded so well in doing, namely, to improve 
the morale of the ministry and membership and prepare for a 
new advance. The magnificent distances and the scattered 
membership stood in the way, but an appreciable result was 
attained. In fact, the foundations laid or restored remain of 


534 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


incalculable value to the work of the Church west of the Mis¬ 
sissippi. The following quadrennium, he was continued on the 
same district. Between 1913 and 1917, he had charge of the 
East district. At the General Conference in 1917, prior to the 
election of Bishops, he asked that his name be not considered in 
connection with the election about to take place, and stated 
lucidly and open-heartedly his reasons for his request. Among 
other things he said: “Age is coming on apace, and I do not 
care to continue under the burdens imposed by official life. 
While I expect to remain active for years to come, and that, 
too, in a general way, I prefer that my work shall be directed 
along other lines where I can be useful without assuming cares 
and responsibilities which ought to go to other and younger 
men.” With high appreciation of his character and services, 
the General Conference unanimously elected him Bishop 
emeritus. By another action, the Conference gave him an 
open door by electing him superintendent of evangelism. As 
a member of various boards and of the General Conference of 
1921, and as always responding to calls within his reach, he 
has been and remains active in promoting the interests of the 
Church. He is a strong preacher, high natural gifts being 
accompanied and supported by clear thought and orderly 
effort. If he is eloquent, and he often is, the eloquence is that 
of the old and ever-new gospel that first warms his own heart. 
He has great aptitude, and has had large success in promoting 
the financial interests of the Church, both general and local. 
He is the author of books entitled, “How Our Preachers Die,” 
“Getting and Giving, or, the Stewardship of Wealth,” and 
“Twenty Years on Horseback, or, Itinerating in West Virginia.” 
Jointly with H. H. Fout, he is the author of two volumes of 
biography, chiefly of home missionaries, entitled, “Our Heroes.” 

William Melvin Bell, one of the three newly-elected 
Bishops, was born in Whitley county, Indiana, November 12, 
1860. He had the benefit both of a good physical and a good 
spiritual heredity. His great-grandfather, Zephaniah Bell, a 
Methodist minister, moved from New Jersey to Richland 
county, Ohio, when that part of Ohio was a wilderness. His 
grandfather, Robert Bell, moved his family from Ohio to 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


585 


Whitley county, Indiana. Isaac Bell, son of Robert, as he 
grew up, assisted his father in carving a home out of an almost 
unbroken forest. In 1859, he was married to Nancy E. Ihrig, 
whose grandparents came originally from Lancaster county, 
Pennsylvania. To this union were born, in a humble log house, 
three sons, William M., Harvey L., and Earnest E. When in 
1850 a United Brethren church was organized in the com¬ 
munity, Robert Bell and a son, Enoch Bell, were charter mem¬ 
bers. To the community the pioneer preachers of St. Joseph 
conference were regular visitors. When William M. was 
about fifteen years of age, he w T as converted in a far-reach¬ 
ing revival, and at once joined the Church. At the same 
time, his parents were converted and became members of 
the Church. From this time the thought of the Christian 
ministry was before him constantly. A good course in 
the public schools, advanced work in Roanoke Seminary, 
normal school work at Columbia City near his home, and 
a number of terms of teaching in the public schools were but 
steps toward his real life work. His first license was to 
exhort. In 1879, he was licensed to preach, and became a 
member of St. Joseph conference. At once, he was sent to 
Lagrange mission. Within the year he was married to Miss 
Irene J. Henny. Prosperous pastorates followed in succession 
at Ligonier, Lafayette, and Elkhart. He soon became a recog¬ 
nized leader in Sunday-school work. For two years he was 
secretary of the Indiana State Sunday-school association, and 
for three years president of the association and superintendent 
of the State work. At first, he carried his Sunday-school work 
along with his pastoral work, but later he gave his entire time 
to Sunday-school work. 

As B. F. Booth, the secretary of the missionary society 
had died prior to the meeting of the General Conference in 
1893, it was necessary that a new man should be selected for 
the place. Those acquainted with Mr. Bell and his fourteen 
successful years in the ministry did not hesitate to recommend 
him for the responsible place. In his favor also was his facility 
in general Christian work, and his proved capacity for leader¬ 
ship. Elected secretary of the missionary society, he at once 


536 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


brought to the work committed to him his wide variety of 
talent and his full fund of energy. In his twelve years as 
missionary secretary, he made five trips to mission fields, 
established the Search Light for awakening a larger interest in 
missions, saw missions established in Porto Rico and Japan, 
led in wiping out the debt on the missionary society, and in 
general contributed to the enlargement of the work of the 
Church in the missionary field. 

When it came to the election of William M. Bell as Bishop 
in 1905, the Church well knew that it was making no experi¬ 
ment. With growing power, influence, and acceptibility, he 
has performed the duties of his high office now for nearly 
twenty years. A large part of the time his work has been 
principally on the Pacific Coast, but all parts of the Church 
have had the benefit of his service, the eastern part of the 
Church constituting his present special area. Bishop Bell 
presents a wonderful combination of physical and mental 
force, of strength of thought and power of expression, and, 
what is more, of rare talent and versatility in connection with 
care and thoroughness in preparation and performance. The 
impression which he makes is that of massiveness. As a 
popular lecturer, especially on social topics, his reputation has 
gone far beyond his own Church. But his Church and the 
Christian public in general are glad to think of him as a peerless 
preacher of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. He has written 
books under the following titles: 'Torches Aloft,” "Life of 
Bishop Castle,” and "Social Message of our Lord.” 

This side of Otterbein and Boehm, T. C. Carter has been 
the only one elected Bishop that did not enter the ministry and 
receive his ordination in the United Brethren Church. But 
as Otterbein assisted in the ordination of Asbury, through whom 
the great body of Methodist ministers received ordination, 
his ordination might quite surely be traced back to Otter¬ 
bein. At a meeting of a number of United Brethren ministers, 
at Dayton, Ohio, July 17, 1894, the following resolution was 
adopted: "Resolved, that we learn with no small degree of 
interest of advances toward union with our Church on the part 
of a large number of evangelical Christians in Tennessee, 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


537 


North Carolina, and adjacent states/' It was further resolved, 
“That we encourage the promoters of said union through the 
action of representatives of our Church, and through prelim¬ 
inary conferences provided it should appear that a just and 
helpful union can be effected." From this southern territory, 
largely new to the United Brethren Church, a number of min¬ 
isters previously belonging to the Methodist Episcopal church 
in the South came into the United Brethren Church. The 
reason given for their seeking a different church relationship 
was that generally given for previous withdrawals from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, namely,that that church was 
not sufficiently democratic to suit them. As the leader of 
those proposing to come to the United Brethren Church, T. C. 
Carter, in November, 1894, was received into the United 
Brethren Church by S. S. Holden, presiding elder of the United 
Brethren Church in East Tennessee, other members of the 
United Brethren Church, William McKee, W. J. Shuey, and 
John Dodds, a layman, being present from the North. He 
became the superintendent of what seemed for a time a very 
promising field for the United Brethren Church, and in 1905 
was placed as Bishop over a special Southern district. He was 
reelected in 1909. In 1913, the Southern district was discon¬ 
tinued, and Bishop Carter was not continued as Bishop beyond 
being designated a Bishop emeritus. Bishop Carter was born 
in Carroll county, Tennessee, January 1,1851. He was brought 
up in a noble though humble Methodist home. As the result of 
a hard struggle for a liberal education, he completed a course 
in DePauw University, in Indiana, in 1875. He received license 
and began to preach in 1869. After completing his college 
course, he taught as principal in a seminary, and then served 
as college president. In 1880, he was sent as a missionary to 
China, and placed in charge of a mission school. After two 
years, he was compelled by failing health to return home. 
Then, for nearly ten years, he was the able editor of the Metho¬ 
dist Advocate, published at Chattanooga, Tennessee. Then 
he for a time served as pastor. On his withdrawal from the 
Holston conference, with which he had been identified, that 
conference in a commendatory resolution declared: “We 


538 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


extend to Doctor Carter our Christian sympathy and prayers, 
and, should he ever return to our ranks, we will extend to him a 
hearty welcome.” The Southern work, however, it may be 
accounted for, brought frequent disappointments. Some 
splendid workers have labored in that field, and valuable re¬ 
sults stand as a monument to their toils and sacrifices, but the 
hope of general expansion of the Church in that field proved 
illusory. Bishop Carter was highly gifted and accomplished 
both as a preacher and a lecturer. As a popular lecturer, he 
had readiness and facility in meeting the requirements of any 
occasion. After he ceased to be an active Bishop, he continued 
to preach and attend stated meetings in the Church. He came 
to his death in a sad and tragic way in Cincinnati, Ohio, 
February 27, 1915, he being a transient in the city, without 
the company of friends at the time of his death. His body was 
taken for burial to Chattanooga, Tennessee, where memorial 
services were held. 

General Conference of 1909. 

The twenty-fifth General Conference met May 13, 1909, 
at Canton, Ohio. N. Castle, Bishop emeritus, presided at the 
first session and gave an earnest address. Bishops Mills, 
Mathews, Weekley, Bell, and Carter presided at subsequent 
sessions. The conference was made up of the six Bishops 
named, 118 ministerial delegates, and 117 lay delegates, 23 
of the latter being women. Ministers for whom memorial 
exercises were held were Bishop E. B. Kephart, I. L. Kephart, 
William McKee, C. J. Burkert, D. W. Sprinkle, G. Fritz, J. L. 
Grimm, and G. H. Hinton. The Bishops' address, prepared 
by Bishop Mills and read by Bishop Bell, portrayed the prog¬ 
ress of the Church, and as a distinct feature called attention 
to the urgent demand for social justice and betterment. The 
statistics showed a church membership of 272,591. 

Church Union Again. 

The effort at church union had come to a standstill. It 
started out hopefully in 1902, the Cumberland Presbyterians, 
Christian, Methodist Protestant, United Brethren, and Con- 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


539 


gregational churches looking with favor toward a union of 
some kind. The first named soon formed a union with the 
Presbyterian church. The second soon dropped out. The 
Methodist Protestants began to consider a union of the different 
branches of Methodism and the Congregationalists failed to 
approve the form of union drawn up at the meeting of the 
Council at Chicago in 1907. To the United Brethren the 
difficulties to be met became more and more evident, and as 
time passed a distinct and self-centered church consciousness 
became more and more pronounced. The Methodist Protes¬ 
tants, after a survey of the whole situation, were ready for a 
union with the United Brethren Church, even though other 
churches should stand aloof, but the lack of a general interest 
in this direction made further action at this time impossible. 
The agitation for union seemed to help rather than hinder the 
work of the Church. The General Conference was fully ready 
to give adherence to the Federation of Churches in America. 

Iowa and DesMoines conferences were united. Upper 
Wabash conference was discontinued and its territory distribut¬ 
ed. Northeast and Northwest Kansas conferences were 
united. Ontario conference had gone into a union with the 
Congregationalists of Canada. A conference was formed 
called the North Texas conference. 

The Women's Missionary association, in its meeting just 
prior to the meeting of the General Conference, as a result of 
considerable agitation and debate, proposed to the General 
Conference that said Association should cooperate with the 
boards of foreign and home missions, the Association to have 
representation on both of these boards. This met the approval 
of the General Conference. While many at first thought that 
it would be better for the Women's Missionary association to 
continue to disburse its own funds and manage its own missions, 
the wisdom of the course taken seems to have been fully vin¬ 
dicated. An advanced step of the General Conference was in 
providing for a full-time Christian stewardship secretary. 

The Bishops and general officers of the preceding term 
were reelected with the exception that J. E. Fout was made 
business manager of Union Biblical Seminary in the place of 


540 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


C. M. Brooke. In place of I. L. Kephart, who had died in 
October, 1908, J. M. Phillippi was elected editor of the Religious 
Telescope, and C. I. B. Brane was elected associate editor. 
The Christian stewardship commission, appointed by the 
General Conference, chose J. S. Kendall general secretary of 
Christian stewardship. Within a little less than four months 
from the close of the session of the General Conference, Bishop 
Mills was called by death from his place and work in the 
Church. 


General Conference of 1913. 

The twenty-sixth General Conference met May 8, 1913, 
at Decatur, Illinois. Two hundred and twenty-eight members 
were entitled to seats, including the five Bishops, Bishop 
Castle, emeritus, being one of the five. Bishop Mills had died 
early in the quadrennium. Other prominent persons that died 
in this interval were Ex-Bishop Flickinger, D. R. Miller, of 
Sandusky conference, S. E. Kumler, a layman of Miami con¬ 
ference, and W. H. Ulrich, a layman of East Pennsylvania 
conference. For these and others an appropriate memorial 
service was held. The church membership had now come to 
be 303,000. 

The consolidation of conferences took another step for¬ 
ward. Lower Wabash and Northern Illinois conferences were 
authorized to unite, and thus constitute a State-wide Illinois 
conference, a step, however, that was not taken until after the 
next General Conference. Likewise, East Nebraska, North 
Nebraska, and West Nebraska conferences were authorized to 
form themselves into a State-wide Nebraska conference, which 
they did. Two or more conferences in Kansas were also 
authorized to unite. The union of the conferences in Nebraska 
was completed in 1913 and of the conferences in Kansas in 1914. 
A number of advanced steps were taken, some of which will 
be noticed fully in connection with the history of the several 
departments. Orphanages and benevolent homes were more 
and more enlisting the interest and support of the Church. 
Full-time secretaries for the Board of Education and Young 
People's work, and a Bishop for the foreign field were au- 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


541 


thorized. Commissions on finance and evangelism, and a plan 
for ministerial pensions were favorably acted upon. 

A depressing or bewildering factor in connection with the 
conference was the great loss sustained by the Printing Estab¬ 
lishment by the disastrous flood that overwhelmed Dayton 
just prior to the meeting of the General Conference, the loss, 
including interruption and derangement of business, amounting 
to more than $100,000. This loss was replaced by donations 
from the Church to the extent of over $7,000. 

Church Union. 

At this session of the General Conference, the proposal for 
a union of the United Brethren and Methodist Protestant 
churches was given a new interest with a good prospect of 
success. A cordial and able presentation of the proposition 
was made by a delegation from the Methodist Protestant 
church. In April preceding the session of the General Confer¬ 
ence, the commissions of the two churches had agreed upon a 
proposed basis of union, the result of a number of conferences 
and of wide consultation in the two churches. The name pro¬ 
posed in the syllabus was the United Protestant Church. An 
excellent "declaration of faith” was presented. The "constitu¬ 
tion” provided for a General Conference, for annual confer¬ 
ences, for bishops or superintendents, and the various depart¬ 
ments of church work. After an extended discussion, the fol¬ 
lowing paper, as recommended by the entire board of Bishops, 
a slight amendment being embodied, was adopted: 

1. We recommend that this General Conference approve 
the Syllabus of Union, subject to amendment as it provides, 
and commit itself unreservedly to the proposed policy of union 
with the Methodist Protestant Church. 

2. That the Bishops be authorized to submit the syllabus 
and plan of union to our annual conferences for consideration 
and approval. 

3. That upon an affirmative vote of three-fourths of our 
annual conferences, the Board of Bishops shall submit the 
question to vote of our membership. 

4. That upon an affirmative vote of three-fourths of our 
membership voting for it, and the adoption of the Confession 
of Faith and Constitution, as provided in the Discipline of the 


542 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Church, the Bishops shall be authorized to convene the General 
Conference for final approval and ratification. 

5. That we immediately federate in all possible activities 
and occasions with the Methodist Protestant Church. 

6. That we authorize our Commission on Church Union 
to carry forward a campaign of information to the end that all 
our people may act intelligently and in the fear of God on the 
proposition of union. 

7. That our editors be authorized to set forward the out¬ 
standing reasons for the union of a divided and distracted 
Protestantism. 

While the recommendation was adopted with great en¬ 
thusiasm, there was enough of hesitation and opposition in the 
General Conference and in the Church in general to raise serious 
questions as to what the outcome would be. The account of 
the next General Conference must indicate the result. 

Bishops Mathews, Weekley, and Bell were reelected, also 
N. Castle and T. C. Carter as Bishops emeritui. The new 
Bishops elected were H. H. Fout, C. J. Kephart, and A. T. 
Howard, missionary Bishop. Other general officers reelected 
were publishing agent, W. R. Funk; editor of Religious Tele¬ 
scope, J. M. Phillippi, with C. I. B. Brane, associate editor; 
editor of Watchword, H. F. Shupe; business manager of Bone- 
brake Seminary, J. E. Fout; home missionary secretary, C. 
Whitney; foreign missionary secretary, S. S. Hough; general 
church treasurer, L. 0. Miller; Christian stewardship secretary, 
J. S. Kendall. The newly elected officers were, editor of Sun¬ 
day-school literature, W. 0. Fries, with J. W. Owen associate 
editor; secretary of Sabbath-school association, C. W. Brew- 
baker, with Robert Cowden secretary emeritus; church-erec¬ 
tion secretary, A. C. Siddall; secretary of board of education, 
W. E. Schell; secretary of young people’s work, 0. T. Deever. 

Bishops Fout, Kephart, and Howard 

Fortunately for us, we already have some knowledge of the 
honored Kephart family to which the newly elected Bishop 
belongs. We have studied the life and followed the labors of 
his older brother, Bishop E. B. Kephart, and have had fre¬ 
quently before us the name of his yet older brother, I. L. 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


543 


Kephart, for more than nineteen years the editor of the Religi¬ 
ous Telescope. 

Henry Harness Fout was born in Grant county, West 
Virginia, October 18, 1861. his parents being Henry and 
Catherine (Powell) Fout. These parents, with a group of 
eight children, occupied a comfortable farm house in a com¬ 
munity above the average in intelligence and in devotion to 
moral and religious ideals. The United Brethren Church, to 
which the parents belonged, was the leading church in the com¬ 
munity. They lived to see all of their children converted and 
brought into the Church. The subject of our sketch made a 
public profession and united with the Church in his eighteenth 
year, though he had the confidence that he always was a 
Christian, as a child and a youth could be a Christian. It is not 
strange that his quiet concurrence in the influences of a genial 
Christian home and a warm-hearted local church had much 
to do in shaping his ideas as to the place and privileges of 
children in the kingdom of Christ. He received license to 
preach, and became a member of Virginia conference in 1885. 
He completed a four years' course in Shenandoah Collegiate 
Institute in 1886, and graduated from Bonebrake Theological 
Seminary in 1890. Following his graduation, he served nine 
years as pastor of the Oak Street church, Dayton, Ohio, and 
two years as presiding elder in Miami conference. In 1901, he 
was elected by the General Conference editor of Sunday-school 
literature, in which position he continued to serve until 1913, 
when he was elected by the General Conference to the office of 
Bishop, being reelected in 1917 and 1921. He was a delegate 
to the General Conferences of 1901, 1905, 1909, and 1913. In 
1900, he was married to Miss Adah Catherine Pierson. 

As an editor and a Bishop, Mr. Fout has performed well 
the duties to which he was called by the Church. Natural 
talent as a preacher is well matched with an earnest religious 
experience and the force of an impelling call to his life work. His 
confidence and enthusiasm in the work of the Church in whose 
communion he labors amount almost to a passion, and yet his 
fellowship and cooperation are generously proffered and cor¬ 
dially welcomed in the wider circles of Christian life and ser- 


544 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


vice. After returning from a journey through Bible lands, 
he published a book entitled, "The 1900 Pilgrimage/' and 
in 1913 he published a book entitled, "The Child and the 
Church." He was also the joint author with Bishop W. M. 
Weekley, of two volumes entitled "Our Heroes," giving sketches 
of United Brethren pioneer preachers. In the winter of 1918 
and spring of 1919, he served as a member of a commission to 
the Near East, the purpose of which was to investigate condi¬ 
tions and organize relief units in Palestine, Syria, Armenia, and 
Mesopotamia. Since becoming Bishop he has had charge of 
the Northwest District, with every interest of which he has 
been closely identified. 

Cyrus J. Kephart was born in Clearfield county, Penn¬ 
sylvania, February 23, 1852. In 1859, his father's family 
removed to Mercer county, Pennsylvania, within the limits 
of what then was Western Reserve conference. The United 
Brethren Church not being well established in that part of the 
country, he attended churches and Sunday-schools of other 
denominations, but frequently went with the family to New 
Lebanon, five miles distant, to revivals and other meetings 
conducted by the United Brethren. Here, when about twelve 
years old, he went to the altar and was converted. Following 
attendance at the public schools, he attended an academy at 
New Lebanon, and then taught school for two terms. In 1869, 
he accompanied his parents to Iowa, where he entered Western 
College, from which he graduated in 1874. December 4, 1873, 
he was married to Miss Sallie S. Perry. In 1871 he received 
quarterly conference license to preach, and in 1874 became a 
member of Iowa conference. After serving a year at Toledo, 
Iowa, as pastor, he entered Union Biblical Seminary, from 
which he graduated in 1878. His changes in work were so 
frequent and various that they may be summarized as follows: 
principal of Avalon Academy, Avalon, Missouri, 1878 to 1885; 
professor in Western College, 1885 to 1887; pastor in Des- 
Moines, 1887 to 1889; president of Lebanon Valley College, 
1889-90; then pastor of Trinity church, Lebanon, until 1894; 
general secretary Pennsylvania Sabbath-school association, 
1894 to 1897; president of Avalon College, 1897 to 1899; 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


545 


pastor at DesMoines, Iowa, 1899 to 1903; pastor at Lisbon, 
Iowa, 1903 to 1908; pastor of First Church, Dayton, Ohio, 
1908 to 1913. Against the frequent changes made, at least some 
of them, his brother, Bishop E. B. Kephart sometimes re¬ 
monstrated. But, notwithstanding the diversity of work, he 
has maintained the same tender heart and steady purpose, his 
variety of experience contributing to his preparation for the 
varied responsibilities awaiting him. Bishop Kephart is a 
strong preacher, emphasizing the cardinal doctrines of Chris¬ 
tianity, and applying them to the practical needs of men, 
individual and social. He is a ready presiding officer and a 
careful administrator. He might be said to combine the facility 
of his brother I. L. Kephart with the massive force of his 
brother E. B. Kephart. He has written books under the fol¬ 
lowing titles: “The Public Life of Christ/' “Jesus, Lord and 
Teacher," “Christianity and the Social Weal." 

A. T. Howard was born March 12,1868, in a country home 
five miles from Schoolcraft, Michigan. His grandfather, 
Alfred Ploward, moved from near Troy, New York, to Michigan 
in 1832. He became a member of the United Brethren Church 
and gave the site on which a church building was erected. His 
son, Cornelius, the father of A. T. Howard, went through the 
Civil War without being a professed Christian, but later, 
deliberately, in his home announced his purpose to become a 
Christian, and the first evening in January, 1868, read a por¬ 
tion from the Bible and offered prayer. From that time, 
morning and evening, family worship was regularly observed. 
Later, a deepened religious experience made Christian service 
a joy. His wife, Harriet, was in her quiet way equally devout 
and uniform in her religious life. To these parents, three sons 
and a daughter were born, the latter dying in infancy. The 
second of the sons is the subject of our sketch. He attended 
the public schools, taught school, studied a year at Roanoke, 
Indiana Seminary, entered Otterbein College in 1889, graduat¬ 
ing in 1894. In June, 1894, he was married to Miss May Day 
Stevenson. The following November, they went as missionaries 
to Africa, Mr. Howard becoming the principal of the training 
school located at Shenge. They were on the sea on their return 


546 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


to America when the uprising in Africa occurred, in which 
seven missionaries lost their lives. Then followed a term in 
missionary work in Japan, and then a year at home in study in 
Bonebrake Seminary. From 1905 to 1913 Mr. and Mrs. 
Howard were engaged in missionary service in Japan. Mr. 
Howard for a number of years was charged with responsible 
duties in connection with the federated missions and Sunday- 
school work in Japan. He also served for a time as superinten¬ 
dent of the United Brethren mission work in China and the 
Philippines. 

Having been elected Bishop and assigned to the foreign 
district in 1913, he twice made the visitation of all the United 
Brethren mission fields. He made a third visit to Africa, en¬ 
countering all of the difficulties and dangers growing out of the 
World War. In 1916, he attended the Latin American confer¬ 
ence at Panama, and made a special visit to Porto Rico. On 
his return in 1919 from his last visit to Africa, he performed 
the duties of the secretary of foreign missions for two years. 
In 1921, he was elected president of Bonebrake Theological 
Seminary, it being understood that he should have charge of 
the special department of missions, which, as contemplated, 
should be fully developed and equipped. His strong convic¬ 
tions as to the need of trained workers for the fields at home and 
abroad, and the place that he holds in the confidence and 
esteem of the Church, promise well for the building up of the 
Seminary and the suitable training of the workers of the 
Church. 


General Conference of 1917. 

The General Conference convened in its twenty-seventh 
session at Wichita, Kansas, May 10, 1917. With the excep¬ 
tion of N. Castle, Bishop emeritus, all of the Bishops were 
present—Mathews, Bell, Weekley, Kephart, Fout, and Howard. 
The members entitled to seats were, Bishops, including N. 
Castle, 7, ministerial delegates, 125, and lay delegates 120. 
While the larger conferences were granted a larger number of 
delegates, the number of delegates was kept down by the 
reduction of the number of delegates from the smaller confer- 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


547 


ences. Suitable memorial exercises were held for former 
members that had died in the quadrennium, prominent among 
whom were Bishop Carter and Matt Edmonds a well-known 
Kansas layman. The Georgia-Florida conference was dissolved 
and a conference under the name of Florida conference was 
recognized. 


A New Board. 

The most significant and advanced act of the General 
Conference was the constituting of a Board of Administration, 
which soon became almost a little General Conference in the 
intervals of the General Conference sessions. The board was 
to consist of the “Bishops, ex-officio, and one minister and one 
layman for every fifty thousand members or fraction thereof 
from each Bishop's district in the United States, to be elected 
by the General Conference," the General Conference also to 
elect a general secretary. Among the various duties assigned 
to the board was to promote the financial plans of the Church 
and be the coordinating body for the entire Church, especially 
promoting harmony and efficiency in the plans and work of 
the various church departments. While the board encountered 
difficulties and criticisms, it became more and more evident 
that the time had come when a measure of this kind was 
absolutely necessary. A strong list of goals was marked out 
for the quadrennium. 

Church Union Halted. 

The matter of church union came now to its final stage. 
Following the action of the preceding General Conference, 
more than three-fourths of the annual conferences had voted 
for the submission of the plan of the proposed church union to 
a vote of the membership of the Church, but it became more 
and more evident that the endorsement of three-fourths of the 
membership, as required in the plan of submission, could not 
be secured for the proposition. The Bishops had therefore 
delayed the submission of the matter to the membership. 
While many of the leaders of the Church ardently desired the 
union to be effected, the members of the General Conference 


548 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


voted to take no further action for the time being, believing 
that further agitation and effort would be distracting and fruit¬ 
less. Other efforts in earlier times that ended in failure were 
the efforts in 1813 and 1817 to unite the United Brethren and 
the Evangelical Association. Renewed efforts were made 
later to unite these two organizations. In 1833, a proffer of 
union was made by the Methodist Protestants. In 1855, an 
earnest effort was made to unite the Wesleyan Methodist and 
United Brethren churches. 

A deep wave of tenderness and sympathy swept over the 
conference as Bishop Weekley, after sketching his work in the 
Church, asked that he be not further charged with official 
responsibility. The conference reluctantly complied and made 
him Bishop emeritus. C. Whitney, who had served eight 
years as home missionary secretary, made a similar request, 
and in appreciation of his earnest life and efficient services he 
was made home missionary secretary emeritus. 

Bishops Mathews, Bell, Kephart, and Fout were reelected, 
and W. H. Washinger was elected for his first term. General 
officers reelected were, publishing agent, W. R. Funk; editor 
of Religious Telescope, J. M. Phillippi, with C. I. B. Brane, 
associate editor; editor of Sunday-school literature, W. 0. 
Fries, with J. W. Owen, associate editor; editor of Watchword, 
H. F. Shupe; foreign missionary secretary, S. S. Hough; secre¬ 
tary of board of education, W. E. Schell; secretary of church- 
erection, A. C. Siddall; secretary of Sunday-school board, C. W. 
Brewbaker; secretary of young people’s work, 0. T. Deever; 
secretary of board of administration, J. S. Kendall, previously 
secretary of stewardship; L. 0. Miller, Church treasurer; J. E. 
Fout, business manager of Bonebrake Seminary; P. M. Camp 
was made the new home missionary secretary. 

Bishop Washinger. 

William H. Washinger was born at Jacksonville, near 
Greythorne, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, September 9, 
1862. When he was seven years of age, his parents, Jacob 
and Sarah Washinger, moved to Franklin county, near Rox- 
bury. He was the eighth in a family of ten children. His 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


549 


father was a merchant, and later a farmer, thus perhaps passing 
to his son, some of the industry and business tact that after¬ 
ward so strongly characterized him. By close study in con¬ 
nection with summer terms of school, he prepared himself for 
teaching in the public schools, on which he entered at the age 
of eighteen, devoting five years to this form of work. In 1885, 
he married Miss Romaine E. Funkhouser, whose parents were 
of honored United Brethren stock. In 1881, while employed 
as a teacher, he was converted and joined the United Brethren 
Church. In 1889, he was granted annual conference license 
and became a member of Pennsylvania conference. It was by 
hard work and rigid economy that he secured his educational 
preparation. In 1886 he entered Lebanon Valley College, 
from which he graduated in 1891. 

In his college vacation in 1890, Mr. Washinger was instru¬ 
mental in organizing the Derry Street mission in Harrisburg. 
In the regular pastorate, he served the Otterbein church in 
Harrisburg three years, and then the church in Chambersburg 
eight years. From the pastorate in Chambersburg he was 
elected to the superintendency of the Pennsylvania conference, 
in which position he served for fifteen years. In all of these 
years, the spiritual interests of the Church were kept foremost, 
but the physical interests or the support of the divine kingdom 
received most careful and thorough attention. Weak congre¬ 
gations were looked after, debts were paid off, churches adapted 
for their purpose were built. He possessed the qualities of a 
true “ human engineer ” in the best sense of that designation. 
He expected and required those under his charge to do efficient 
work, even at the risk of losing their favor for the time. His 
success in directing the forces in his conference, and the marked 
prosperity of the work of the Church there, were primary 
considerations in his being elected Bishop by the General 
Conference in 1917. He was sent as Bishop to the Pacific 
coast, a field occupied since 1853, but a field in which gains 
had been slow and the conservation of results most difficult. 
The district included the California, Oregon, Columbia River, 
and Montana conferences. The distances and the silences and 
the secular atmosphere prevailing would naturally tend to 


650 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


chill enthusiasm and daunt purpose. Bishop Washinger's re¬ 
port to the next General Conference showed that he first made 
a thorough survey of the field and then adopted “a program of 
evangelism and one of finance.” Bishop Castle, who knew 
every foot of the field, in reference to this report, kindly wrote 
Bishop Washinger: “Your report of the Pacific district is 
most illuminating, and a wonderful condensation of achieved 
results during the quadrennium. No such report ever has 
been made of work on the Pacific district.” Bishop Washinger 
was reelected Bishop and returned to the Pacific district, 
where a settled plan and loyal team work are achieving their 
proper results. 


General Conference of 1921. 

The General Conference of 1921 was held at Indianapolis, 
in the state of Indiana, a State that had been occupied by the 
Church more than a hundred years, a State, too, having a high 
ratio of United Brethren members. Hitherto no session of 
the General Conference had been held within its bounds, 
though fifteen sessions had been held within the neighboring 
State of Ohio. A large attendance was present from Indiana 
and from the Church in general. A larger exhibit of the work 
of the Church departments and of the history and various 
interests of the Church was on display than at any previous 
session. All of the Bishops were present except Bishop Castle, 
who sent a letter of great tenderness and spiritual fervor. It 
was his swan's song, for he breathed his last within a little less 
than a year. In the preceding quadrennium, a large number 
of pioneer builders, and also of more recent workers in carrying 
forward the interests of the Church and the kingdom of Christ, 
were called away by death. Among the number were, W. J. 
Shuey, thirty-three years the agent of the Printing Establish¬ 
ment; D. Berger, twenty-six years the editor of Sunday-school 
literature; H. A. Thompson, educator, editor, and author; 
C. I. B. Brane, associate editor of the Religious Telescope; 
G. M. Mathews, Bishop since 1902; D. D. Lowery, a long- 
period superintendent of East Pennsylvania conference; and 
Miss Vera Blinn who gave her life to the promotion of the work 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


551 


of the Women’s Missionary association. The sermon by 
Bishop Bell, senior Bishop, on the morning of the first Sabbath 
was most impressive and inspiring. 

The lecture by Hon. William Jennings Bryan in favor of 
the old faith and against Darwinism completely captured the 
audience, and probably was the prompting cause of a strong 
resolution calling for adherence to the fundamental principles 
of Christianity. 

The address of Robert E. Speer, representing the Federal 
Council of Churches, and fraternal addresses from representa¬ 
tives of other denominations, were outstanding features of the 
conference. The presence and address of Bishop 0. G. Alwood, 
of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ (Old Con¬ 
stitution) awakened a kindly response. 

A large amount of attention was given to the subject of 
the use of the Publishing House real estate at the corner of 
Fourth and Main streets, Dayton, Ohio. On the presentation 
of a plan that seemed to safeguard the interests of the Church, 
it was decided that the same might be improved by the erection 
of a suitable building, or, as an alternative, that the property 
might be sold. 

Greater definiteness was given to the powers and the 
scope of operation of the Board of Administration, with a view 
to adding to the efficiency of said board. 

One board was constituted for the departments of Home 
Missions and Church Erection, however, with a secretary for 
each department. 

East and West Tennessee conferences were united. Louis¬ 
iana conference was made a mission district, and territory in 
Arkansas was united with Oklahoma conference. Minnesota 
conference was made a mission conference. What was Ken¬ 
tucky conference was divided between the Tennessee and 
Indiana conferences. 

All five mission fields, which were reported as prosperous, 
were represented by missionaries or native workers. An 
evening was given to inspiring addresses by workers in these 
fields. 


552 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


New Measures. 

The launching of a pension bureau for aiding aged or dis¬ 
abled preachers and their dependents, on a practical basis 
and with a prospect of becoming operative soon, well may be 
called a new measure of paramount importance. The need of 
such an agency long had been apparent. In the plan, provision 
is made for benefits to older preachers on a non-contributing 
basis, and to those that are younger on a contributing basis. 
Four-fifths of the sums given as benefits are to be supplied by 
donations or the proceeds from endowments. 

A second special measure was the creation of a department 
of Evangelism. In the early history of the Church, the func¬ 
tion of evangelism was almost the sole function of the Church. 
But, with the creation of a number of Church departments, 
and the increased complexity of modern life, it seemed neces¬ 
sary that a special department should be formed to give 
prominence and permanency to the original and primary work 
of the Christian church. 

A committee appointed for the purpose presented an 
elaborate report on “Goals and Program for the next Quad- 
rennium.” The report, which was adopted, emphasized “team 
work and unified effort.” It put “spiritual life and evangelism” 
first, and made the securing and use of money for the purposes 
of the divine kingdom an imperative condition or adjunct in 
reaching and conserving spiritual results. The report desig¬ 
nated preferred and non-preferred claims, and funds for en¬ 
dowment and equipment as distinguished from funds for cur¬ 
rent operating and enlargement purposes. Details were 
referred to the Board of Administration. 

Bishops Bell, Kephart, Fout, and Washinger, were re¬ 
elected. Arthur R. Clippinger was the newly-elected Bishop. 
The other officers elected were as follows: W. R. Funk, pub¬ 
lishing agent; J. M. Phillippi, editor of Religious Telescope; 
W. E. Snyder, associate editor of Religious Telescope; H. F. 
Shupe, editor of Watchword; W. 0. Fries, editor of Sunday- 
school literature; J. W. Owen, associate editor of Sunday-school 
literature; L. 0. Miller, general church treasurer; J. E. Fout, 
business manager of Bonebrake Seminary; S. S. Hough, secre- 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


553 


tary of board of administration; P. M. Camp, secretary of 
home mission board; A. C. Siddall, secretary of church-erection 
board; S. G. Zeigler, secretary foreign mission board; W. E. 
Schell, secretary of board of education; C. W. Brewbaker, 
secretary of Sunday-school board; 0. T. Deever, secretary of 
young people's work; J. E. Shannon, secretary of evangelism. 

Bishop Clippinger. 

Arthur Raymond Clippinger, elected Bishop in 1921, was 
born in Franklin county, Pennsylvania, September 3, 1878. 
His parents were Harry R. and Harriet Rebecca (Gillan) 
Clippinger. His father was of German and his mother of 
Scotch-Irish descent. Both were of United Brethren ante¬ 
cedents through several generations. The home was a home 
of piety and order. He was converted at the age of seven, 
and made Sunday-school superintendent at the age of seven¬ 
teen. As a member of the Church, various duties in connec¬ 
tion with the local class, such as usually were committed to 
those beyond his years, were committed to him. Becoming a 
Christian thus early, and not having the stormy experience 
that he heard others relate, he sometimes came to be doubtful 
of his own state. He thought sometimes that, if he should go 
out and do some tall sinning, perhaps he could have the out¬ 
burst of emotional experience that some others had. Yet his 
own experience may have been for him the best preparation 
for being a guide to others. Beginning before he was seven¬ 
teen years of age, he taught four terms of public school. He 
was licensed to preach and received into the Pennsylvania 
conference in 1903. He graduated from Lebanon Valley Col¬ 
lege, in 1905, and from the Yale Divinity school in 1910. He 
did much to help himself by teaching and preaching, but 
friends on whom he could have had no claims gave him needed 
assistance in pursuing both his college and theological course. 
After a successful pastorate at New Cumberland, Pennsyl¬ 
vania, and pastorates in the Congregational church before 
completing his school work, he came in 1910 to the pastorate 
of the Euclid Avenue church, Dayton, Ohio, to which he 
devoted the following eight years. In this period, an excellent 


554 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


church building was erected, and the congregation was much 
enlarged, thoroughly organized, and usefully led out into all 
forms of religious work. In 1918, he was made superintendent 
of the Miami conference, in which work he was engaged at 
the time when he was chosen Bishop. In 1907, he was married 
to Miss Ellen W. Mills, the daughter of Bishop J. S. Mills. 
Bishop Clippinger is a ready preacher, fair-minded and sympa¬ 
thetic toward those under his charge, and has the requisite 
decision and strength of purpose to be a good administrator. 
With him, while “salvation” must be given the first place, 
“the things that accompany salvation,” or are a basis for its 
triumph, will not be overlooked. 

Final Survey. 

As this narrative of the central events in the course of 
the Church down to the present time, 1924, comes to a close, 
some note may be taken of recent conditions and occurrences. 
The following statistics for the close of the year 1923, are full 
of interest and meaning: Church members, 379,314; number in 
senior, intermediate and junior Christian Endeavor societies, 
96,585; members in Women's Missionary association, 37,305; 
members in Otterbein Guild, 14,891; total enrollment in Sun¬ 
day-schools, including 43,197 on cradle roll, 433,710; general 
benevolent budget, $630,172; pastors' salaries, $2,202,515; 
value of churches, $17,793,202; value of parsonages, $3,619,517. 
Beginning with a few thousand loosely connected adherents in 
1800, with almost no property or support for preachers, the 
results shown, for a century and a quarter of effort, while no 
occasion for pride, are yet a ground for devout thankfulness. 
The Church long unknown or confused with other bodies is 
now well known and fully recognized among the religious forces 
of our country and in the mission fields abroad. Because of 
weakness and tardiness in organization, and because of the 
handicap inevitable in a smaller Christian denomination, the 
results of much evangelistic effort have gone to other Christian 
denominations. If the work of the United Brethren Church 
has contributed to the building up of the kingdom of God on a 
broader scale than what is handed down in its own member- 


PERIOD FROM 1897 TO 1924 


555 


ship, there may be compensation for the sense of loss that is 
felt. A liberal acknowledgment has been made by leaders in 
other churches of the overflow of zealous workers thus coming 
to them. Bishop I. W. Joyce of the Methodist Episcopal 
church, Louis Albert Banks, the noted preacher and author, 
E. 0. Excell, the popular song writer and leader, and many 
others, more or less distinguished, were led into Christian life 
and service through the United Brethren Church. The devo¬ 
tion and service of the Church to moral reform, the national 
welfare, and the relief of the distressed abroad are generally 
recognized. After the struggles and crises of the past, the 
Church, with larger equipment and with new consecration and 
hope, faces toward the tasks and opportunities of the future. 
We may yet notice the changed character of the work of the 
Church in recent years. Along with the word institutional as 
characterizing church work in the last four or five decades, 
the word standardization must be placed. Standardization is 
the leading thought and ideal of these later years, a standard 
for the individual worker, a standard for team work, a goal 
for the united work of a particular denomination and for the 
concerted action of the whole body of churches. If we have 
followed and studied to purpose the course of our denomina¬ 
tional history in the earlier and later periods, we shall ap¬ 
preciate the meaning and importance of specialization, in¬ 
stitutions, and standards of efficiency. From the central, 
largely the official, line in the history of the Church, we now 
may turn our attention to the departments of Church work, 
and to the work and the workers in the annual conferences. 

















PART III. 


DEPARTMENTS OF CHURCH WORK. 























































' 
























J 


















































































































































































































































































































































CHAPTER I. 

THE UNITED BRETHREN PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 

Beginning of Religious Newspapers—The Publishing House in Circleville— 
Removal to Dayton—Personal Sketches—Periodicals—The Religious 
Telescope—German Papers—Sunday-School Literature— 
Magazines—Indep endent J ournalism—B ooks— 

Financial Growth—Personal Sketches. 

/ N THE early period of the Church, evangelism occupied 
the entire field. The first special department to be 
marked out and provided for was that for carrying to the 
public the printed page. Some hymn books, Newcomer’s 
Journal, five successive editions of the Church Discipline, and 
some pamphlets were published by contract, and individual 
initiative blazed the way for entrance on the publication of a 
religious newspaper by the Church. Some of the history of 
the founding of the Religious Telescope already has been given, 
because of the intimate relations of this publication to all of 
the interests of the Church in all of the stages of its develop¬ 
ment. To this account the reader is referred. 

The writer had the privilege of examining the earliest 
files of the Herald of Gospel Liberty, which was founded by 
the Christian church in 1808, and which is said to have been 
the first religious newspaper published. The Boston Re¬ 
corder and the Religious Intelligencer appeared in 1816; the 
Watchman in 1819; the Christian Mirror in 1822; Zion’s 
Herald and the New York Observer in 1828; the Wesleyan 
Journal in 1825; the Christian Advocate and the Morning Star 
in 1826; the Reformed Church Messenger and the Presbyterian 
in 1827; and the Christian Intelligencer and the New York 
Evangelist in 1829. In 1832, there were eighteen religious 
newspapers west of the Alleghenies, and not less than fifty 
in the entire country. The first denominational publishing 
house is said to have been that of the Methodists which began 
as a bindery in 1822 and secured fixed premises and added 

559 


560 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


presses in 1824. Yet the Herald of Gospel Liberty, with its 
“printing office and book store,” would date back to 1808. 

Thus, when Aaron Farmer began the publication of Zion's 
Advocate in 1829, he was a pioneer in the field of religious 
journalism. A copy of Zion’s Advocate, seen by the writer, 
carried the notation, “November 6, 1830, Vol. II, No. 5,” 
“published every two weeks.” Its continuance was probably 
from one and a half to two years. In April, 1834, the Virginia 
conference approved the publication of a religious paper, the 
first number of which appeared June 27, 1834, under the name 
“Union Messenger,” William R. Rhinehart, “publisher.” 
The publisher said that he would wait some weeks to see 
whether the subscription would “justify the publication of 
the work.” He expressed some doubt as to the success of 
the undertaking “because of an establishment of the same 
kind that has taken place in the Vv 7 est,” having reference to 
the action of the General Conference the year before. When 
subsequent issues appeared, they bore the name the “Mountain 
Messenger.” The periodical could not have existed more 
than three or four months until it was absorbed by the “Re¬ 
ligious Telescope.” 

The Publishing House in Circleville. 

While no action of the General Conference of 1833 looking 
toward the founding of a religious newspaper is recorded in 
the minutes, it is certain that agents were appointed to secure 
subscriptions and the capital thought necessary for such a 
publication. Later, these agents were called trustees, though 
they were not properly such until they were thus made by the 
Scioto conference. These men, John Russel, afterwards a 
Bishop, and George Dresbach and Jonathan Dresbach, laymen, 
were strong business men and zealous in their devotion to the 
Church. But, before the financial basis for the new enterprise 
had been secured, they had an opportunity to buy to advantage, 
April 12, 1834, in Circleville, Ohio, at a public sale, a consider¬ 
able part of a publishing outfit for $455. The next month, 
May 30, they bought a lot and two small houses in Circleville 
for $550. November 10 following, they purchased two fonts 


PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 


561 


of type from W. R. Rhinehart for $325. The cost of these 
purchases, with sundry others, was $1,600, nearly all of which 
was borrowed. The first purchase named above was made 
before the trustees were formally made such by the Scioto 
conference on May 21, 1834. Thus, by the acts of the General 
Conference and the Scioto conference, the steps taken by the 
trustees and the arrangement made with W. R. Rhinehart, 
the “Religious Telescope” was launched, with W. R. Rhine¬ 
hart editor, and, with the counsel and assistance of the trus¬ 
tees, also publisher. The first number of the periodical 
appeared December 31, 1834. Some years later, the trustees 
stated that the Religious Telescope was started sooner than 
was expected. It is not strange, therefore, that they felt 
constrained to support the new enterprise with their personal 
credit. They even attempted to add to its resources by an¬ 
ticipated profits from publishing a local political paper. At 
this time, a denominational publishing house was wholly an 
experiment. For the first six years, the printing plant failed 
to pay expenses. The financial situation began to improve 
about 1843, and, with the adopting of the cash system in 1845, 
the situation was further improved, so that by 1849 all lia¬ 
bilities were cancelled. In 1853, the net assets were credited 
with being $15,000, though later, because of worthless accounts, 
the amount was reduced to $13,000. From time to time, some 
changes were made in real-estate holdings and the location of 
the Telescope office. For eight years prior to 1853, the office 
was in the basement of the Circleville United Brethren church. 
The small houses referred to above, and perhaps another pur¬ 
chased later, were used in part as residences for the editor and 
publisher. 

Turning away for the present from the financial struggles 
and distresses connected with the beginnings of the Publishing 
House, we may notice the more direct efforts to minister to 
the Church through the printed page. The new periodical 
was designed to be a medium of "correct religious, moral, and 
literary intelligence,” rather than for promotional purposes. 
But the tremendous power of the press for aggressive purposes 
could not long be held in the background. This was specially 


562 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


true with William R. Rhinehart as editor, particularly in 
regard to temperance and the abolition of slavery, of which 
causes he was a valiant champion. At this time, the field for 
the Religious Telescope was not large, as in the Church there 
were not more than twenty thousand members. But other 
things at that time likewise were small. Mr. Rhinehart re¬ 
signed as editor in 1839, probably because of his not being in 
full accord with the sentiments of the Church at that time, 
and also because of the financial needs of the Telescope office. 
His immediate successors were William Hanby and David 
Edwards, both of whom afterward became Bishops. As the 
names of editors and publishers are given consecutively in the 
historical tables in Part V, no attempt will be made to give 
full particulars here. 


Removal to Dayton. 

The Publishing House was placed in Circleville largely 
because it was a convenient center within the strong Scioto 
conference. At the time, there was no United Brethren class 
there, though a good congregation slowly was built up. About 
1849, agitation became strong for the removal of the Publishing 
House from Circleville to some larger town or city. J. Russel, 
H. Kumler, Jr., and others counseled the removal to Cin¬ 
cinnati. A prominent member there offered to donate a part 
of a site and guaranteed that the cost for removal should not 
exceed fifty dollars. The culmination of the struggle was 
reached in 1853. The earnest efforts of Circleville to retain 
the Publishing House have been referred to. When the case 
was pending in the General Conference of 1853, A. Biddle, of 
Sandusky conference, championed Dayton as the proper place 
for the permanent location of the House. The General Con¬ 
ference decided by a large majority to locate the Printing 
Establishment, as it properly is called, at Dayton. So pleased 
were some of the members of the Church in Dayton that they 
took Mr. Biddle, on his return through Dayton from the 
conference, to a hat store and made him a present of a fine 
silk hat. 


PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 


563 


The transfer of the equipment of the Publishing House 
was made on the canal from Circleville to Columbus, from 
Columbus to Xenia on the railroad, and from Xenia to Dayton 
by wagons. Immediately after the session of the General 
Conference, the trustees purchased, at a cost of $11,000, a lot 
in Dayton at the northeast corner of Main and Fourth streets, 
fronting fifty-nine and one-half feet on Main street and being 
one hundred and fifty-two feet in depth. The selection was 
made by S. Vonnieda and Henry Staub, the former being the 
newly elected publishing agent, and the latter the newly elected 
editor of the German paper. The lot had on it a large brick 
dwelling, at one time known as Strain's tavern, and also another 
building. The brick dwelling was used for the time for the 
purposes of the Printing Establishment, but in 1854 the old 
buildings were removed and a substantial four-story brick 
building, forty feet in front and ninety feet deep, was erected, 
for factory and office purposes, the cost being $15,000. 

The Publishing House brought with it, besides the Re¬ 
ligious Telescope, the German paper first published by the 
Church in 1841, although a beginning had been made the year 
before by J. Russel in publishing a German paper in Baltimore, 
Maryland, in behalf of the Church. The General Conference 
of 1853 had authorized the publication of a children's paper, 
published in 1854 under the name the "Children's Friend," 
and also had authorized the publication of a magazine in the 
interest of holiness, under the name "Unity with God," later 
called the "Unity Magazine." The magazine appeared in 
November, 1853. Bishop Edwards was made editor of both of 
these publications. It should be said also that the Publishing 
House brought with it a fairly equipped bindery department. 
By the action of the General Conference of 1853, supervision 
of the Publishing house by the Scioto conference in the inter¬ 
vals of the General Conference sessions ceased, and all re¬ 
sponsibilities were transferred to the trustees. In 1850, 
Circleville had 3,411 inhabitants, and Dayton, 10,976. From 
the time of the removal of the Publishing House to Dayton, 
the fortunes of the former have been closely linked with the 
fortunes of the latter. 


564 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


While Circleville was yet the home of the Publishing 
House, articles of incorporation were secured from the legis¬ 
lature of Ohio, under date of March 16, 1839. One of the 
provisions was that the net proceeds of the establishment 
should be divided among the annual conferences for the “sup¬ 
port of their ministry.” A strange provision, due to the fear 
at that time of large corporations, was that “the proceeds of 
any and all property held by such incorporation shall never 
at any time exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars per annum.” 
The period for which incorporation was granted was limited 
to thirty years. 


Personal Sketches. 

William R. Rhinehart was born in Rockingham county, 
Virginia, November 28, 1800. He received a fair education, 
and was about to enter the ministry in the Lutheran church, 
but was deterred therefrom by what he thought was indiffer¬ 
ence or opposition toward revivals on the part of the Lutheran 
synod. He had a commanding physique, was a fine singer, a 
composer of music, and an arresting and spectacular preacher. 
He was much in demand as a preacher at camp-meetings. He 
joined the Old conference in the East in 1825 and, as already 
stated, was the first editor of the Religious Telescope, serving 
from 1834 to 1839. Scissors more than the pen were the chief 
instrument of early editors, only special occasions calling forth 
editorial articles, or essays, as they might better be termed. 
Mr. Rhinehart, however, did not hesitate to strike strong blows 
against slavery and intemperance. Under his direction, the 
columns of the Religious Telescope soon came to be occupied 
with a considerable amount of Church news, while from his 
own pen came frequent short articles setting forth spiritual 
truth and urging activity and faithfulness in Church work. 
Communications, often in a series, were for the most part 
wearisome, though perhaps at the time read with avidity. 
After his term as editor, he was employed chiefly as pastor 
and presiding elder in Miami conference. He died in Dayton, 
May 9, 1861. October 7, 1923, a tablet to his memory was 


PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 


565 


placed in Miami chapel, Dayton, Ohio, his burial place being 
in the cemetery adjoining. 

Nehemiah Altman, publishing agent from 1845 to 1852, 
was born in Germany in 1813. Born a Jew, his first occupation 
in America was that of a peddler of various kinds of cloth, 
which he carried in a pack on his back. He was converted 
through the influence of Bishop Henry Kumler, Sr., and was 
licensed to preach in 1844. For a time he served as editor of 
the German paper. He served as pastor in Ohio and as pastor 
and presiding elder in Pennsylvania. He was a man of unusual 
force and devotion. He died in Baltimore, Maryland, Febru¬ 
ary 21, 1878. 


The Religious Telescope. 

The Religious Telescope, as a name, is a household word 
wherever there are members of the United Brethren Church. 
One or two periodicals are known to have borne the name 
Telescope, before the periodical under notice appeared; but 
the name has been held almost as distinctively as if protected 
by copyright. The Religious Telescope, through editors, 
correspondents, and news, has been the maker of much of 
what the Church has come to be, and it very completely fur¬ 
nishes the record of the plans and struggles, successes and 
failures, that have marked the past, and it furthermore registers 
the heart throbs and vicissitudes of thousands upon thousands 
of individuals. Its files, in ninety great tomes, are at once the 
mine and the despair of the historian. 

One of the most brilliant and successful editors that the 
Religious Telescope has had was John Lawrence, who became 
assistant editor in 1850, and sole editor in 1852. He continued 
to serve until 1864, when he entered the Union army as chap¬ 
lain, and later was appointed judge of a freedmen’s court at 
Nashville, Tennessee. He afterward engaged in the practice 
of law in that city. He was the valiant champion of the 
principles and work of the Church and of all matters of public 
concern. He was especially popular through the support that 
he gave to the Union cause during the Civil War. 


566 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


When Lawrence resigned as editor, Daniel Berger at once 
was appointed to the vacant place, serving from 1864 to 1869, 
and for four years thereafter as assistant editor. In various 
ways, he was specially fitted for the duties of editor. He had 
good scholarly equipment, and was exacting in his work. His 
views were sufficiently advanced and consonant with the times 
to make him a valuable leader in the work of the Church. 
The General Conference of 1869 regarded him too liberal in 
his tendencies, and consequently elected a successor who more 
truly represented the Church at the time. Daniel Berger's 
more proper place is among the editors of Sunday-school litera¬ 
ture. 

M. Wright, editor from 1869 to 1877, and J. W. Hott, 
editor from 1877 to 1889, already have been noticed as Bishops. 

I. L. Kephart served as editor of the Religious Telescope 
from 1889 until his death, October 28, 1908, thus serving a 
longer period as editor than any of his predecessors. In the 
schools and in varied experience, he had a superior preparation 
for editorial work. He wielded a remarkably facile pen. His 
moral instincts and convictions especially fitted him for the 
times and the tasks that he faced. He came to his editorial 
work at a time of great stress. The work of the revision of 
the Confession of Faith and the Constitution had just been 
completed. The elements of the Church were to be held 
together and the foundations laid for a new advance. The 
life of the Church was to be quickened, stronger organization 
was to be effected, and greater efficiency in administration was 
to be sought. In all of these directions his editorial work was 
helpful. 

M. R. Drury, who served as assistant editor and then 
associate editor with J. W. Hott from 1881, and then with 
I. L. Kephart up to 1897, in all a period of sixteen years, had 
much to do in carrying on the varied work of the editorial 
office. With readiness to perform any kind or amount of 
work, he filled out various features in the general character of 
the Religious Telescope. 

J. M. Phillippi, made assistant editor in 1902, and acting 
editor on the death of I. L. Kephart in 1908, and then elected 


PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 


567 


editor by the succeeding General Conferences down to the 
present (1924), hardly needs an introduction to the Church 
or general public. His tasks and opportunities have fallen 
in the times of great diversifying and big programs in the work 
of the Church. An editor less versatile or less capable of 
endurance would be unable to meet the requirements that now 
are made of the editor of the Religious Telescope. But his 
special characteristic, and that which specially fits him for his 
task, is his fervent faith in the character and mission of the 
Church of which he is a member and servant. Outside of his 
direct editorial work, there is scarcely a form of service to 
which he does not lend a hand. But this contact in turn 
contributes to the success of his work as editor. 

C. I. B. Brane, associate editor of the Religious Telescope 
from 1909 until the time of his death, April 7, 1920, a period of 
eleven years, always will be remembered for his deep spiritual 
life, for his enthusiasm for the Church, especially in its early 
history, and for the influence that these qualities had on his 
editorial work and on his service to the Church in various ways. 

Thus we have sought to get a glimpse of those that have 
given to the Church, through the columns of the Religious 
Telescope, the noonday strength or in some cases the matured 
experience of the westering sun of their lives. Of the lives of 
some of the editors already named, a few added facts will be 
given. Of some, sketches are given elsewhere. Of others, 
facts will be found in the historical tables. 

John Lawrence was born in Wayne county, Ohio, Decem¬ 
ber 3, 1824. He entered the ministry in Sandusky conference, 
became a charter member of Michigan conference, and later 
renewed his membership in Sandusky conference. He was 
prominent in all of the movements of the Church in his time. 
He was the author of a history of the Church issued in two 
volumes in 1860-61, and the author of books on secret socie¬ 
ties and slavery. He died August 7, 1889. 

I. L. Kephart, the oldest brother of the Bishops, E. B. 
and C. J. Kephart, was born in Clearfield county, Pennsyl¬ 
vania, December 10, 1832. Much of his history already has 
been given in connection with the sketches of his two brothers. 


568 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


From 1859 to 1863, he was engaged in pastoral work. In 
1863 he enlisted in the Union army and was commissioned 
chaplain. He participated in nineteen engagements in front 
of Richmond and Petersburg, and in the final campaign result¬ 
ing in the surrender of Lee. He again engaged in pastoral 
work, but for a considerable time was employed in teaching 
and as actuary of the U. B. Mutual Aid society. He taught in 
San Joaquin Valley College, California, Western College, Iowa, 
and was president of Westfield College, Illinois, from which 
position he was chosen editor. He was the author of a number 
of books, and was honored with the degree of Fellow of the 
Society of Science, Letters, and Art, of London. 

Marion R. Drury was born at Pendleton, Indiana, Decem¬ 
ber 27, 1849. After completing courses in Western College 
and Union Biblical Seminary, he served as pastor in Iowa con¬ 
ference to 1881, when he became assistant editor of the Re¬ 
ligious Telescope and after 1893 associate editor. He is the 
author of a number of books. Since 1897 he has served as 
pastor, as president of Philomath College, in Oregon, and 
Leander Clark (Western) College in Iowa. At present he is 
with his son, Philo W. Drury, in Porto Rico, serving as mission¬ 
ary on his own charges. 

C. Ira Berton Brane was born in Frederick, Maryland, 
December 25, 1848. His education was chiefly by private 
study. He became a licensed preacher in Virginia conference 
in 1873, and served as pastor and presiding elder. He served 
as pastor in Pennsylvania and had a large part in building up a 
congregation in Washington, D. C. For a long time he was 
Washington correspondent for the Religious Telescope, under 
the non de plume of Moc Enarb. He closed his work with his 
life, April 7, 1920. 

Joseph Martin Phillippi was born March 2,1869, in Fulton 
county, Illinois. He completed courses in Westfield College 
in 1893, Union Biblical (Bonebrake) Seminary in 1896, and 
Illinois Wesleyan University in 1904. He became a member 
of Illinois conference in 1890. Giving vacation time and later 
full time, he served several charges as pastor. In 1897 he was 


PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 


569 


elected to the faculty of Westfield College, and in 1902 he be¬ 
came assistant editor of the Religious Telescope. 

German Periodicals. 

The German Periodicals date back to March 7, 1840, 
when John Russel, from 1838 to 1841, and 1851 to 1854, the 
pastor of the Otterbein congregation at Baltimore, Maryland, 
began to publish a German monthly paper called “Die Ges- 
chaeftige Martha” (The Busy Martha). The General Con¬ 
ference of 1841 authorized the publication of a German paper 
in Baltimore, into which the earlier paper was merged, carrying 
with it its name. Jacob Erb, the pastor of the Otterbein 
congregation from 1841 to 1848, became the editor. The first 
number of the new Geschaeftige Martha appeared July 1,1841, 
but the paper was discontinued in June, 1842, for want of 
sufficient patronage. In October, 1846, the House began the 
publication of a paper called Der Deutche Telescope (The 
German Telescope), edited by Nehemiah Altman, who at that 
time was serving as publishing agent. From 1847 to 1851, 
David Strickler was the editor. In 1849, the name, Die Ges¬ 
chaeftige Martha, was restored. In 1851, Henry Staub became 
editor, and November 11 of that year the name was changed 
to Der Froeliche Botschafter (The Joyful Messenger), a name 
that it has retained since. August 17, 1855, Julius Degmeier 
succeeded to the editorship. Solomon Vonnieda was the editor 
from 1858 to 1866, when the paper was transferred to Lebanon, 
Pennsylvania, where it was published until 1869, Ezekiel Light 
being the editor. 

On the return of the Froeliche Botschafter to Dayton in 
1869, William Mittendorf took up the work as editor, in which 
work he continued until his death, April 24, 1895, with the 
exception of the quadrennium between 1885 and 1889, and 
about two months in 1893, in which intervals, E. Light was the 
editor. His actual service thus extended through twenty-two 
years. The editing of the Jugend Pilger likewise was a part 
of his work. E. Light served altogether seven years, including 
the three years when the German papers were published at 
Lebanon. From 1895, E. Lorenz was the editor of the German 


570 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


papers up to the time of his death February 24, 1900. A. 
Schmidt and H. J. Fischer were appointed to edit the German 
papers until the meeting of the General Conference of 1901, 
when the German papers were turned over to the Ohio German 
conference with an annual subsidy to defray in part the expense 
of publication. That policy since has been maintained. 

The history of the German papers has been largely the 
history of the German work. The German workers have been 
earnest, loyal and efficient, but it has not been permitted to 
them to garner and retain their own gains. The struggle to 
maintain the German literature, and the benefit of this litera¬ 
ture to the German work, and through this work to the cause 
of Christ in general, are evident and gratifying. Of some of 
the editors named, a few facts may be brought together. 

William Mittendorf was born in Hanover, Germany, 
January 30, 1830. He came to America in 1853. He was 
converted and joined the United Brethren Church in 1859, and 
three years later was received into the Ohio German confer¬ 
ence. Even before this, he began his work in the ministry. 
From 1885 to 1889, he was pastor of the Otterbein congrega¬ 
tion in Baltimore, Maryland. He translated the history of 
the Church into German, translated hymns and compiled a 
German hymn book, and was an earnest and effective preacher. 
He was spoken of as the “Nestor of our German work.” 

E. Light was born at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, March 19, 
1834. When about eighteen years of age, he came to Ohio. 
At the age of twenty-one, he was licensed to preach and was 
received into the Ohio German conference. After serving 
several charges in Ohio, he returned to Pennsylvania. In 
1862, he enlisted in the army and was commissioned chaplain, 
serving until the end of the war. He reentered the ministry. 
In all, he gave sixteen years to the pastorate and ten years as 
presiding elder. He served as college agent and editor of the 
“United Brethren Tribune” and “The Observer.” In 1893, 
he was made chaplain of the National Soldiers' Home at 
Dayton, Ohio, his service continuing until 1900. He died 
November 4, 1903. He belonged to the well-known Light 
family of Lebanon county, Pennsylvania, his father and grand- 


PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 


571 


father, and three sons of each, being ministers. His strong 
native talents found employment in manifold lines. 

Edward Lorenz was born in Germany, November 26, 
1827. He came to America in 1848. He joined the Ohio 
German conference in 1862 and served continuously as pastor 
in German churches for twenty-eight years. He then labored 
as a missionary four years in the United Brethren mission in 
Germany. As pastor, presiding elder, missionary, and editor, 
he was faithful, consecrated, and efficient. 

Sunday School Literature. 

The Sunday-school literature of the Church first made its 
appearance in 1854. Sunday schools had been in existence 
about three quarters of a century, and yet little suitable litera¬ 
ture had been provided for their use. Spelling books and 
readers were supplied first, as the main object was to keep the 
children from the streets and teach them to read. It was 
thought that if a child should be religious, he should be such 
as a man, and should be taught as a man. Bishop Edwards, 
in connection with his duties as Bishop, was to edit the first 
child’s paper, the Children’s Friend, and also a magazine on 
holiness. We can imagine him, in turning to this new service 
for the children, to be about as clumsy as a bear in fondling a 
kitten. Yet, “Uncle Edwards” sought friendly relations with 
the children, and the children loved “Uncle Edwards.” In 
this work the scissors could be used freely; however, the ma¬ 
terial for the scissors was not very abundant. In 1857, Alex¬ 
ander Owen succeeded to the editorship of the Children’s 
Friend, and also the Unity Magazine. In 1859, the latter 
was discontinued, and Solomon Vonnieda became the editor 
of the Children’s Friend. He had a real sympathy for children, 
and for ten years the readers of the Children’s Friend felt 
that they had almost a real acquaintance with “Uncle Solo¬ 
mon.” Daniel Berger became editor of Sunday-school litera¬ 
ture in 1869 and continued as such until 1893. His successor, 
J. W. Etter, died in 1895, and Mr. Berger again occupied the 
position until 1897, thus serving as editor of Sunday-school 
literature twenty-six years. The Missionary Visitor, estab- 


572 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


lished in 1865, was designed as a Sunday-school paper, and 
was distributed on alternate Sundays with the Children's 
Friend, each appearing every two weeks. In 1873, after the 
introduction of uniform Bible lessons, Lesson Leaves for the 
Sabbath School appeared, followed in 1881 by the Intermediate 
Quarterly. In 1873, Our Bible Teacher made its appearance. 
Our Little Ones and Our Bible Lesson Quarterly followed in 
1876 and 1879 respectively. H. A. Thompson became editor 
of Sunday-school literature in 1897, and served until 1901 
H. H. Fout became editor in 1901, and served until 1913. 
W. 0. Fries was elected associate editor in 1901, and has had 
charge as editor since 1913, with J. W. Owen as associate editor. 
Others have served as associate editors from time to time. 

Brief notices of some of the editors may be given here. 
Under the skilled hand of Daniel Berger, a large part of the 
development of the Sunday-school literature took place. He 
was born near Reading, Pennsylvania, February 14, 1832. 
In 1838, his father's family moved to the vicinity of Springfield, 
Ohio. In the home, the language first used was Pennsylvania 
German. At the age of eighteen, he entered the Ohio Method¬ 
ist Episcopal high school in Springfield, remaining two years. 
He then taught three years in a private academy. Afterward, 
he was principal two years of a district school in Springfield, 
and for one year was principal of one of the high schools of 
that city. By private study in these years he made such 
notable progress that he was given the degree of master of 
arts from Ohio University in 1856. He was converted and 
became a member of the United Brethren Church in 1844, 
and was licensed to preach by Miami conference in 1854. 
From 1858 to 1864, he was engaged in pastoral work, being 
pastor of First Church, Dayton, the last year. Then came 
editorial work extending through thirty-one years. For twelve 
years, he was a member of the International Sunday-school 
Lesson committee. His play was in botany, flowers, fruits, 
and children, and, one would not fail to add, the Bible. His 
wife, to whom he was married in 1853, and who died in 1915, 
was brought up a Catholic, being a cousin of Cardinal Merry 
Del Val. Her little book, “In and Out of Catholicism" has 


PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 


573 


much interest. He made valuable contributions to the book 
literature of the Church, among which was his History of the 
United Brethren Church, published in 1897. He died Sep¬ 
tember 12, 1920. He was cultured in the best sense. He was 
an entertaining and instructive preacher, and a scholarly and 
polished writer, to whom thousands in the Church today are 
deeply indebted. 

H. A. Thompson was the associate editor of Sunday-school 
literature from 1893 to 1897, and the editor-in-chief from 1897 
to 1901. He was the editor of the Quarterly Review from 
1901 to 1909. He was the author of books entitled, Our 
Bishops, the Biography of Bishop Weaver, Schools of the 
Prophets, and Women of the Bible. He was a strenuous re¬ 
former, being a candidate on the Prohibition ticket for Vice- 
President of the United States in 1880, and twice candidate 
for Governor of Ohio. Although he was licensed to preach in 
1860, his life was given chiefly to teaching in Western College, 
Westfield College, and Otterbein University. He was president 
of Otterbein University from 1872 to 1886. In the variety and 
extent of his activities, he stood out quite alone. He was born 
March 23, 1837, graduated from Jefferson College in 1858, and 
died at Dayton, Ohio, July 8, 1920. 

William Otterbein Fries, the present editor of Sunday- 
school literature, was born near Winchester, Virginia, Novem¬ 
ber 17, 1860. He graduated from Lebanon Valley College in 
1882, and from Union Biblical Seminary in 1884. He became 
a member of Virginia conference in 1881. After serving as 
pastor in Virginia and Maryland two years, he was principal 
of West Virginia Academy two years. From 1889 to 1905 he 
served as pastor and presiding elder in Sandusky and Central 
Ohio conference. In 1905, he became associate editor of Sun¬ 
day-school literature and in 1913 editor. 

John W. Owen, the present associate editor of Sunday- 
school literature, was born at Littlestown, Pennsylvania, 
September 3, 1871. He graduated at Lebanon Valley College 
in 1891, and at Union Biblical Seminary in 1903. He served 
as pastor in Pennsylvania conference until his election in 1913 


574 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


as associate editor of Sunday-school literature. He is a nephew 
of Alexander Owen, the second editor of the Children's Friend. 

The Watchword. 

The Watchword, a periodical first issued in September, 
1893, was established in the interest of the young people. 
H. F. Shupe has been the editor from the first to the present 
time. It has been a great agency in promoting the organiza¬ 
tion of young people's societies, in the stimulating of in¬ 
tellectual and spiritual life, and in enlisting and training the 
young people for service. Its circulation now is very largely 
in the Sunday schools. Henry F. Shupe (Uncle Harry) was 
born March 18, 1860, near Scottdale, Pennsylvania. Beyond 
the public schools, his education was received in normal 
schools and academies and in Union Biblical Seminary, from 
which he graduated in 1885. He became a member of Alle¬ 
gheny conference in 1885, and at once entered upon pastoral 
work in that conference, in which he continued until his election 
as editor of the Watchword. He is the author of helpful books 
along the line of young people's work. 

The Evangel, though printed by contract for the Women's 
Missionary association, is truly a Church publication. It will 
be noticed further in the account of the Women's Missionary 
association. 


Magazine Literature. 

Under this head, the Unity Magazine and the United 
Brethren Review may be named. The former appeared as a 
monthly magazine in November, 1853, under the name, “The 
Unity with God and Magazine of Sacred Literature." The 
next year it became simply “The Unity Magazine," and two 
years later the name came to be “The Unity Magazine and 
Ladies' Companion." In 1858, the name given was “The 
Christian Repository." Bishop Edwards was the editor to 
1857, at which time Alexander Owen became editor. The 
editorials and communications were most creditable and helpful, 
but it was necessary to discontinue the magazine from want of 
adequate support. 


PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 


575 


Much the same verdict may be rendered regarding the 
United Brethren Quarterly Review. Even greater efforts 
were made to maintain its publication, but they finally had 
to be given up. The publication of the Review was ordered 
by the General Conference of 1889, and J. W. Etter was elected 
editor. In January, 1890, the first number of the Review 
made its appearance. The next year, the editor was elected 
a professor in Union Biblical Seminary, and the other pro¬ 
fessors were to assist in the editorial work. In 1893, the 
faculty of Bonebrake Seminary were given editorial charge, 
but with the last issue of that year the Review was ordered 
discontinued. A voluntary association assumed its publica¬ 
tion, and from the fact that free editorial service was given 
the Review was continued to 1901, at which time the Printing 
Establishment was ordered to resume its publication provided 
it could be published at a loss of not more than one hundred 
dollars per annum. In 1905, the General Conference declined 
to give further support to the Review. However, the publica¬ 
tion of the Review was continued under voluntary arrange¬ 
ments until 1909. H. A. Thompson was the editor from 1901 
until 1909. G. M. Mathews and H. H. Fout, in giving free 
editorial service in order to maintain the Review, presented a 
splendid example of unselfish devotion to what was believed 
to be in the interest of the highest welfare of the Church. 

Independent Journalism. 

Local papers, here and there, are not to be regarded as 
independent papers. Only such periodicals are to be spoken 
of as independent as are not under official direction and yet are 
intended to influence the general policy of the Church. As far 
back as 1849, a little paper was published at Cincinnati, Ohio, 
under the name “The Reformist/' that claimed to work in the 
interest of the United Brethren Church. In 1854 and 1855, 
a paper under the name of “The Virginia Telescope" was 
published at West Columbia, Virginia (now West Virginia). 
The Religious Telescope had given offense by its anti-slavery 
utterances, and this paper sought to take its place with those 
that were opposed to agitation on the slavery question. Some 


576 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


other independent periodicals already have been named, as 
“The United Brethren in Christ,” published at Chambersburg, 
Pennsylvania, “The Richmond Star,” and “The Christian 
Conservator,” all these being published in the interest of a 
rigid law on secret societies; and the “United Brethren Tri¬ 
bune” (from 1873 to 1875) and “The Observer” (from 1875 to 
1879), these published at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, in the 
interest of a modification of the strict rule on secret societies. 
“The Itinerant,” issued first at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 
1879, had sympathies in the same direction, though its main 
purpose was the promotion of religion and the advancement of 
the work of the Church. The other independent periodicals 
also had to some extent these general purposes in view. The 
Itinerant ceased publication in 1888, with the collapse of what 
was designed to be the eastern branch of the United Brethren 
Publishing House. The General Conference of 1881 had 
authorized the establishment of book rooms at Harrisburg, 
and in 1885 had yielded to what seemed to be a general desire 
in the East for a branch agency of the Publishing Establish¬ 
ment at Harrisburg. 

There seems to have been within the Church, as well as 
without, a partiality for the name Telescope in giving titles to a 
variety of periodicals published. Of such there were, besides 
the Religious Telescope, the Virginia Telescope, the German 
Telescope, the Missionary Telescope, the Pacific Telescope, 
and the Southern Telescope. 

Books. 

Many books have been published by the Printing Estab¬ 
lishment. A catalog of these would fill several pages. Books 
such as Disciplines, hymn books, and books concerning the 
teachings, history, and work of the Church must be printed 
by the Church itself, and many other books that can be pro¬ 
duced from within the Church, without pushing out upon the 
Church an inferior product, should be produced and sent out 
by the Church. The benefits would come both to the Church 
in producing and to the Church and general public in receiving. 


PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 


577 


Financial Growth. 

The net assets of the Publishing House in 1853 were about 
$13,000. In 1861, the gross assets were given as $82,829.42, 
and the indebtedness as $48,836.98; but, as more than $25,000 
of the listed assets were found to be worthless, the actual net 
assets were about $8,000. In 1865, the total assets were given 
as $63,822.29, while the liabilities were $52,215.46, leaving 
net assets of $11,606.83. 

Solomon Vonnieda was the publishing agent from 1853 
to 1861, with H. Kumler, Jr., assisting for several months in 
1854, and T. N. Sowers associated with him from 1855 to 
1861. Then T. N. Sowers served as principal agent from 1861 
to 1865, J. B. King being associate agent until 1864, and W. J. 
Shuey being associate agent from 1864 to 1865. 

From 1865 to 1897, W. J. Shuey was the agent of the 
Publishing House, though T. N. Sowers was associated with 
him in the first quadrennium, and William McKee in the 
second quadrennium. According to a plan proposed by him 
and adopted by the General Conference of 1865, an effort was 
made to raise $40,000 as a publication fund in order that the 
House might be put on a safe and efficient basis. The securing 
of $18,364 as a result of this effort gave to the affairs of the 
Publishing House a sharp turn upward. 

The net assets at the close of successive quadrenniums 
after 1865 were as follows: 1869, $61,782, including $15,000 
of increased valuation of , real estate; 1873, $96,525; 1877, 
$102,926; 1881, $162,726; 1885, $212,887, $10,000 having been 
paid in dividends to the annual conferences; 1889, $261,587; 
1893, $325,905, $6,000 having been paid to the conferences, 
the amount later being increased to $6,500; 1897, $322,334, 
$29,717 having been paid in litigation in the church case. 

In 1897 the administration of W. J. Shuey closed and the 
administration of W. R. Funk began. The new administra¬ 
tion made a new appraisal by which the net assets were made 
to be $283,383, a reduction of $38,951. The former adminis¬ 
tration, in the middle of the last quadrennium, introduced the 
plan of a rigid annual ten per cent cut on the entire equipment 
of the Publishing House, a course which with some variations, 


578 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


has been followed down to the present. This cut, made in 
addition to" the expense of thorough up-keep, seems excessive 
and merciless, but its wisdom is vindicated by actual test in 
similar institutions. 

The net assets for the quadrenniums since 1897 have been 
as follows: 1901, $303,179, after deducting a loss in connec¬ 
tion with the International Bible agency of $39,598, the final 
total loss being $42,809, there being also at this time a final 
litigation cost of $5,792; 1905, $402,975; 1909, $536,986; 1913, 
$544,211, after deducting a flood loss of $76,408, and a final 
loss of $22,411 in closing out the bookstore; 1917, $658,424; 
1921, $770,551. Between 1897 and 1921, $170,363 was paid 
to the Church in dividends ($50,000) and subsidies. In this 
time, too, a loss of $161,843 from the flood and the International 
Bible agency was paid. It may be remarked that three times 
the House has been said to be out of debt—in 1849, in 1881, 
and in 1901 to 1903—in every case, however, only soon to 
enter upon debt again by undertaking new enterprises and 
thus seeking to make itself equal to urgent requirements. 

In 1854, a substantial four-story factory building took the 
place of the old residence or hotel building on the lot bought 
on the removal to Dayton. Later, substantial additions were 
made on the Fourth Street side—in 1869, an addition of 
thirty-two feet, three stories high, to which a fourth story 
was added in 1883, and purchases of additional real estate 
being made in 1884, and still additional in 1885, also other land 
being leased. In 1903-1904 the rear factory building was re¬ 
placed by the present seven-story building. In 1904-1905 a 
fourteen story office building was erected. In 1909-1910 the 
eight-story factory building on Market Street was built and 
other property bought, the entire cost being $75,175. In 1913, 
the site of the new factory building on Fifth street was pur¬ 
chased, and in March, 1914, the present splendid factory 
building was begun. For a time the plan was to enlarge or 
rebuild the factory at Main and Fourth streets as the perma¬ 
nent printing factory, but the necessary ground could not be 
obtained. Besides the ground was too valuable for other 
purposes. The area of the floor space of the old eight- 


PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 


579 


story factory building was 80,000 square feet, while the 
area of the floor space of the new factory building is 150,000 
square feet. For convenience and efficiency, however, one 
foot of the latter is worth almost two of the former. 

Great changes have taken place in the real estate holdings 
of the Printing Establishment. Parts of the land originally 
bought were sold unwisely, and later bought back at a greatly 
increased price. Other land has been bought, and still other 
land has been leased, so that the Printing Establishment has 
possession of land at the corner of Main and Fourth streets 
fronting one hundred feet on Main and two hundred feet deep 
and at the rear reaching to Market street. Covering the front 
of this ground, and reaching back one hundred and thirty feet 
on Fourth street, and extending two hundred and eighty-five 
feet above the street level, is the present completed office 
building, the main building having fourteen stories and base¬ 
ment, and the tower having seven stories, the entire building 
containing nearly twenty acres of floor space. 

The printing plant or factory is a four-story concrete 
structure, with basement having a front on Fifth street, 236 Yi 
feet, and a depth of 124 feet. The structure is adapted to 
sustain six additional stories. As a print shop, its equipment 
is modern and ample in every way. The business for the 
year ending January 1924 approximated $700,000. 

Personal Sketches. 

William John Shuey was agent of the Printing Establish¬ 
ment for thirty-three years, the first year being assistant agent. 
He was born in Miamisburg, Montgomery county, Ohio, 
February 9, 1827. His grandfather, John Martin Shuey, 
came to this country in 1805 from Dauphin county, Pennsyl¬ 
vania, his father, Adam Shuey then being five years of age. 
In 1836, Adam Shuey with his family moved to a farm near 
Springfield, Ohio. Having early become a member of the 
United Brethren Church, he was instrumental in organizing 
a United Brethren society in the neighborhood of his new 
home. William J. Shuey had the benefit of the public schools, 


580 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


and later took a partial course in the Methodist Ohio Confer¬ 
ence high school, in Springfield. He was converted at the age 
of sixteen. March 7, 1848, he was married to Sarah Berger. 
At the session of Miami conference convened September 20, 
1848, he was received into Miami conference and in the year 
following he served for a time as junior preacher on Spring- 
field circuit along with Robert Norris, preacher in charge. 
In this year, First Church, Dayton, was organized as a society 
belonging to said circuit. He was pastor of Lewisburg circuit 
from 1849 to 1851, and at Cincinnati from 1851 to 1854. At 
the first annual meeting of the Missionary board, convening 
June 1, 1854, W. J. Shuey was appointed a missionary to 
Africa. D. K. Flickinger and D. C. Kumler were appointed 
to accompany him. The missionaries sailed from New York, 
January 23, 1855, and reached Freetown, Sierra Leone, West 
Africa, February 26, 1855. After the missionaries had ex¬ 
plored the country in search of a location, and had preached 
in various places, Mr. Shuey and Mr. Kumler returned to 
America in the late summer, the latter having been stricken 
with the African fever. After Mr. Shuey’s return from 
Africa, he served as pastor in Cincinnati and Dayton, and 
three years as a presiding elder. In 1864, he began his long 
career in connection with the Publishing House. 

The rescue of the Publishing House from threatened 
extinction because of debt, the successive enlargements of the 
plant itself, and the growth of net assets, already have been set 
forth. Mr. Shuey’s management was progressive, yet con¬ 
servative. He stood firm for the rights and interests of the 
House. While the factory never became a union shop, the 
rights and welfare of all employees always were fully regarded. 
Through the friendly relations maintained between the House 
and the business people of the city, the churches, and the gen¬ 
eral community, the conditions were supplied that favored 
greatly the establishment and growth of the numerous United 
Brethren churches in Dayton and vicinity. The civic and 
religious directorates with which Mr. Shuey was connected 
bear testimony to the large range of his interest, and the 
confidence and esteem in which he was held. As to the boards 


PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT 


581 


and enterprises of the Church, local and general, there was 
little with which he was not closely and long connected. More 
than any Bishop, editor, or other Church leader, Mr. Shuey, 
in his position as Publishing Agent, was for an entire genera¬ 
tion the strategic center for the activities and progress of the 
United Brethren Church. What may be said of the formative 
stage of the Church may be said also of the later critical stage. 
In the revision of the Constitution and Confession of Faith, he, 
with Bishop Weaver, led the way, but through the long course 
of litigation he bore the chief burden and responsibility. 

In 1897, Mr. Shuey was made business manager of Bone- 
brake Theological Seminary, in the founding of which he had a 
prominent part. After his retirement from the public work 
of the Church in 1901, he still carried on for a number of years 
many of the local activities with which he previously had been 
occupied. His physical and mental vigor stood out well 
against the encroachment of age. He died February 21, 1920. 
He was the author, along with D. K. Flickinger, of a volume of 
sermons on doctrinal and practical subjects, published in 1859. 

William Ross Funk, Publishing Agent from 1897 to date 
(1924), was born August 1, 1861, at West Newton, Pennsyl¬ 
vania. After attendance in the public schools, he entered 
Otterbein University and completed a course of study, lacking 
one year. He graduated from Bonebrake Seminary in 1886. 
He was converted and joined the Church in 1872. He was 
received into Allegheny conference in 1883. He served as 
pastor on Westmoreland charge two years, at Scottdale four 
years, and at Greensburg five years. He was married to Miss 
Lottie M. Hamlin in 1882. 

When he came to the Publishing House as agent in 1897, 
he was without experience in the printing business, but he 
gave himself closely to the mastering of its details. He more 
especially sought to become acquainted with the problems 
connected with the relations of the House to the Church and 
the business public. His ideals have been a greater Publishing 
House, a greater United Brethren Church, and a larger and 
surer support for retired ministers. Some have not agreed with 
him in all things. They have distrusted his optimism or 


582 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


adventurousness. He has worked hard and steadily, taking 
the risk of censure at various times with the confidence that 
the future would justify the following out of large plans. The 
largest undertakings, in which he has been supported by the 
successive boards of trustees, have been the construction of the 
office building in 1904-1905, the factory on Fifth street in 
1914-1915, and the enlarged and completed office building in 
1922-1924. The greatness of the undertakings and the unfore¬ 
seen situations suddenly presenting themselves have thrown 
on Mr. Funk great burdens, under which one less able to relax 
and find diversion in other things would have been in peril 
of a breakdown. He calmly expects the future to justify the 
course that has been taken. The organization of the Publish¬ 
ing House for the work of the factory and the management of 
business is most efficient, making it possible for the Publishing 
Agent to respond to many calls in connection with special 
occasions throughout the Church, such as dedications, anni¬ 
versaries, and conventions. In these and other ways the busi¬ 
ness and mission of the Publishing House are brought closer 
to the heart and thought of the Church. 


CHAPTER II. 

FOREIGN MISSIONS 


Home and Frontier Beginnings—World-Wide Missions—The African Mis¬ 
sion—The Women’s Missionary Association—Germany—China— 
Japan—Porto Rico—The Philippines. 


Home and Frontier Beginnings. 

T the outstart, it is difficult to distinguish between 
evangelization and missionary work. Evangelists are 
heralds of the good news in any field, and mission¬ 
aries are apostles, sent-ones, to the fields beyond. 



Before a somewhat definite home base was established, there 
would be little difference. This was specially true of the early 
German preachers among the United Brethren. Missions near 
at hand were mapped out and given aid. Little by little, the 
Church in its more settled parts began to extend aid to border¬ 
ing and more distant settlements, sending preachers or small 
sums of money or both. Many preachers, too, were drawn into 
the stream of emigrants moving westward and northward, 
impelled alike by lust for land and the spirit of adventure. In 
their new homes, they entered upon the work of evangelization. 
As missions and circuits and conferences were formed, con¬ 
tributions from individuals and conferences were received from 
the older parts of the Church. The Benevolent Society fund, 
though small, was almost the same as a missionary fund, being 
used both for home and frontier work, as well as for aid for 
worn-out preachers and their families. On the one hand, it 
was stipulated that this fund was to “supplement the small 
salaries of poor preachers who preach in the frontier and 
western countries/' and, on the other, the regulation followed 
was that the proceeds of the fund should be divided to the 
conferences according to the number of itinerants. The older 
conferences frequently voted their pittance from the benevolent 
fund for the help of those at work in the newer fields in the 
West. David Snyder, living near Carlisle, Pennsylvania, who 


583 


584 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


died in 1819, and his wife, who died in 1826, each bequeathed 
$1,000, the proceeds from which went as aid for preachers, 
though the bequest of the "widow Snyder” seems to have been 
intended for immediate distribution. This irregular and 
rather uncertain help was in a measure succeeded, or added to, 
by the formation of home missionary societies in the several 
annual conferences. From 1838 to 1853, all of the annual con¬ 
ferences, fourteen in number, organized "conference missionary 
societies.” To become a member of such a society, it was 
necessary to join and pay a stipulated sum. The claims of 
missions were presented and offerings were taken. Missions 
were marked out within the bounds of annual conferences, and 
partial support was given to the preachers appointed to these 
fields. Aside from all this, particular annual conferences pro¬ 
jected missions of their own beyond their own bounds. In 
1825, the conference in the East sent Jacob Erb as a missionary 
to northern New York and Canada. He continued to make 
occasional visits, and the connection was maintained for a 
number of years. In 1836, he was regularly appointed a mis¬ 
sionary to Canada by the Pennsylvania conference. In 1840, 
Otterbein’s Baltimore congregation began to pay the salary of 
a missionary to open up work at York, Pennsylvania. In 
1849, Sandusky conference sent Stephen Lee as a missionary 
to Michigan. In 1857, the same conference sent two mis¬ 
sionaries to New England, and in 1862 a Massachusetts mission 
conference was formed, which, however, was discontinued 
after two years. Up to 1853, the greatest extension of frontier 
mission work was through the various annual conferences, 
reaching out to contiguous territory by means of missionaries 
sent out and by the migrating of ministers and members of the 
Church to new parts of the country. Thus, in the early forties, 
Illinois was more fully occupied, and promising missions were 
established in Wisconsin and Iowa. 

Organization for World-Wide Missions. 

Already an account has been given of the organization in 
1853 of the Home, Frontier, and Foreign Missionary society. 
This was necessary in order to an understanding of the entire 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


585 


after-history of the Church. It may be well to notice again 
that the difference between the earlier, or Parent Missionary 
society which accomplished so little, and the organization of 
1853 was that in order to be a member of the former it was 
necessary to join the same, while membership in the Church 
was taken as constituting a person a member of the latter. 
The Women’s Missionary association of the Church adopted 
the earlier plan, because all that become members of the 
Association already are members of the general missionary 
society, and it thus becomes proper and advantageous for 
membership in the Association to rest on a special voluntary 
act. The earlier Parent Missionary association had so little to 
its credit that it seems but just to remember that at the time 
of the General Conference of 1853 it had a company of mis¬ 
sionaries and colonists already on their way to Oregon. This 
mission was spoken of under the name of foreign missionary 
work. 

The prompting impulse in the organization of the Home, 
Frontier, and Foreign Missionary society was the thought of 
sending the gospel to foreign non-Christian lands, or, as often 
said, to the heathen. The expressed purpose of the earlier 
missionary society was to carry the gospel to the frontier and 
to foreign lands. The fact that it did not include the function 
of caring for the home field made necessary the maintaining of 
duplicate organizations. A number of conferences, in addition 
to their home missionary societies, formed auxiliary foreign 
missionary societies. The attempt to operate distinct home 
and foreign societies stood in the way of effective effort in the 
direction of foreign missions. It was not until the home and 
foreign work were brought under a single organization, as pro¬ 
vided for in the constitution of the Home, Frontier, and 
Foreign Missionary society, that foreign missions could have 
any fair prospect of success. It is interesting to notice, in 
addition to the evidences already given, how, under the em¬ 
barrassments named, the rising interest in foreign missions 
pressed its way and declared itself. 

June 29, 1852, the board of trustees of Otterbein Uni¬ 
versity adopted the following resolution: “Resolved, That the 


586 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


board of trustees approve of a missionary society at Otterbein 
University to be auxiliary to the Foreign Missionary society 
of the United Brethren in Christ, an organization not yet 
formed. This society, composed of students, members of the 
faculty, and others of the Westerville church, was the first local 
missionary society formed in the Church. September 18, 1852, 
Sandusky conference adopted the following resolution: “That, 
whereas, the members of the Sandusky Annual conference have 
formed themselves into a foreign missionary society, our dele¬ 
gates to the ensuing General Conference are instructed to pray 
said conference to take such measures as will create an effective 
foreign missionary society, in order to effect a concentrative 
activity throughout the whole Church, so that we as a church 
may confidently look forward to the time not distant, when the 
Church of the United Brethren in Christ will have active mis¬ 
sionaries in foreign lands." By another resolution accompany¬ 
ing the foregoing, the conference formed itself into a “Foreign 
Missionary society." In the open conference, six persons 
became life directors at $50 each, thirty-one life members at 
$10 each, and forty-six members at $1 each. Additional 
memberships and subscriptions were to be secured, and all 
moneys were to be held until they could be applied for the 
purpose named. The Allegheny conference, at its session be¬ 
ginning January 7, 1853, on the presentation of a petition of 
the “Mount Pleasant Heathen Missionary society," formed the 
“Allegheny Conference General Foreign Heathen Missionary 
society," thus by the title making it certain to what field its 
funds should be applied. 

As we face the act of the General Conference of 1853, by 
which the Home, Frontier, and Foreign Missionary society was 
formed, we may recognize gratefully the glowing zeal and 
strong purposes of J. C. Bright in awakening missionary in¬ 
terest and contributing to the founding of this effective mis¬ 
sionary organization of the Church. Henry Garst, a close 
associate, says of him: “It is a significant fact that Rev. John 
C. Bright was a member of the board of trustees of Otterbein 
University in 1852, and was a member of Sandusky conference 
and a delegate to the General Conference of 1853, which I 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


587 


think goes far to account for the action of all of these three 
bodies on the subject of missions. I think it is as proper to 
call Rev. John C. Bright the father of the missionary work of 
the United Brethren Church as it is to call Rev. Lewis Davis 
the father of the work of higher education.” 

The officers with whom the newly constituted Home, 
Frontier, and Foreign Missionary society started out were, 
J. J. Glossbrenner, president; Henry Kumler, Jr., David 
Edwards, and Lewis Davis, vice presidents; William Long- 
street, Daniel Shuck, and D. B. Crouse, ministers; and T. N. 
Sowers and John Dodds, laymen, directors. J. C. Bright was 
secretary, and John Kemp was treasurer. At a meeting of the 
board, evidently held before the dispersing of the members of 
the same, following the session of the General Conference, 
Josiah Terrel was sent to take charge of a mission already 
begun in southwestern Missouri. At a second meeting, held 
September 30, 1853, “it was determined to establish a mission¬ 
ary station on the Big Boom river, in the interior of Africa, at 
an early period/' and also to establish a mission in Canada. 

The African Mission. 

The determination to enter on foreign missionary work 
having been reached, it already was settled that the field to be 
occupied should be Africa. The Church had contended and 
suffered for the down-trodden African in America, and now the 
gospel should be carried to the African in his native land, 
shrouded in the superstitions and steeped in the vices of untold 
ages. Published articles show that the leaders of the Church 
were acquainted with the undeveloped condition of the country 
and the unhealthfulness of the climate. And yet where the 
greatest need was there they would begin their work. The 
board of directors of the Home, Frontier and Foreign Mis¬ 
sionary society convened in its first annual session, June 1, 
1854, at Westerville, Ohio. The board adopted a series of 
eleven resolutions, forming a splendid platform for missionary 
work. The treasurer reported $2,289 in the treasury, and the 
secretary reported as probably available in the hands of branch 
treasurers $11,840 cash, and $3,650 in notes and other forms. 


588 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The board sought to anticipate conditions and exigencies 
such as would be met by missionaries in the field, yet their 
anticipations necessarily were vague and uncertain. The 
minutes record the following: “Rev. W. J. Shuey, of Cincin¬ 
nati, was appointed missionary to Africa, to spend one year on 
the continent, life and health permitting.” Mr. Shuey had 
been active in addresses and in published articles in promoting 
missionary interest, and had delivered the annual sermon in 
connection with the session of the board. The executive com¬ 
mittee later appointed B. W. Day and wife to accompany Mr. 
Shuey, but, as they could not go at that time, D. C. Kumler 
and D. K. Flickinger were appointed missionaries along with 
Mr. Shuey. D. C. Kumler was a regular itinerant preacher, 
and also was a practicing physician. Mr. Flickinger was en¬ 
tering on his long experience in all forms of missionary work. 
January 28, 1855, these three pioneer missionaries sailed from 
New York, yes, sailed, as they went in a small sailing vessel. 
The main cargo of the vessel, oh, the pity of it, was made up 
of rum and tobacco. They reached Freetown the 26th of the 
following month. They found friends and a home with the 
missionaries of the American Missionary association (Congre¬ 
gational). They made extensive explorations on land and by 
boat, and preached to the people here and there through in¬ 
terpreters as they had opportunity. At length they fixed upon 
what they believed to be a suitable place for a mission station 
at Mo Kelli, a town sixty miles from the coast, on the Jong 
river. Negotiations for a site were long drawn out and never 
completed, and happily so, for the location afterward was 
found to be entirely unsuitable. Thinking that a favorable 
location had been found, and confronted by the apparent 
futility of effort to evangelize in existing conditions, it was 
decided that Mr. Shuey and Mr. Kumler should return to 
America, and that Mr. Flickinger should complete negotia¬ 
tions for the site selected and carry on missionary work as he 
might be able. Besides, Mr. Kumler was prostrated by the 
terrible African fever. Thus, after preliminary work of be¬ 
tween four and five months on the soil of Africa, one lone 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


589 


missionary remained to hold the situation and plan for a 
better day. 

At the next annual meeting of the board of missions, 
there was some disposition to criticize the action of the returned 
missionaries, Mr. Bright in his excess of zeal intimating that 
some missionary graves in Africa might have a good effect on 
the Church. Mr. Kumler, who still was suffering from the Afri¬ 
can fever, replied that a dead man is worth no more in Africa 
than he would be in America. The board declared that the 
returned missionaries did not go as “permanent missionaries,” 
but “for an indefinite time and for the accomplishment of a 
specific object,” and that the object was “accomplished as far 
as practicable and at a merely nominal cost.” West Africa 
often has been called the “white man’s grave.” In the first 
twenty-five years of the work of the Church Missionary society 
in Sierra Leone, where the United Brethren mission is located, 
one hundred and nine of the missionaries of the society died. 
Of the six missionaries that went to the mission field in Sierra 
Leone in the boat that carried the United Brethren mission¬ 
aries, one died in six weeks, another in three months, and a 
third in six months. In the United Brethren mission, by the 
care of the missionaries and of the mission board and the good 
providence of God, it was many years before the body of a 
missionary was laid in the soil of Africa. From 1855 to 1869, 
the course of the African mission was little else than an alter¬ 
nation of hopes and disappointments, but at no time, though 
severely tried, did the Church or the board despair of ultimate 
success. Mr. Flickinger prolonged his first term in Africa for 
fourteen months, and then for nine months no missionary was 
on the field. In 1857, Mr. Flickinger, accompanied by W. B. 
Witt and J. K. Billheimer, returned to Africa. In this year, the 
excellent mission site at Shenge, sixty miles southeast of 
Freetown, Was secured. Being situated directly on the coast, 
it has great advantages in healthfulness, accessibility, and 
other favorable features. After one and one-half years of 
valuable service, Mr. Witt, on account of impaired health, 
was compelled to return home. Mr. Flickinger came home, 
and was made secretary of the board of missions in 1857. Mr. 



590 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Billheimer remained until 1859. In this time, he superintended 
the erection of a number of buildings at Shenge. In this 
period, too, two most faithful and helpful converts, Lucy 
Caulker, daughter of the king in that part of the country, and 
Tom Tucker, were converted. For nine months, the care of 
the mission was left to J. A. Williams, a native African that 
had been trained as a preacher in Freetown. He was of the 
Lady Huntington connection. This faithful and capable 
helper served the mission for eleven years, again and again 
being the only missionary on the ground, in the periods when 
the American missionaries were invalided home. Mr. Bill¬ 
heimer returned to America. After a short stay, he returned 
to the mission and continued in the work until the fall of 1861, 
when broken health compelled him to return to America, 
again leaving the work in the care of Mr. Williams. The 
financial affairs of the mission compelled the embarking of Mr. 
Flickinger on a third trip to Africa in December, 1861. He 
made the trip at his own expense. Mr. Billheimer spent his 
time in America recruiting his health, stirring up missionary 
interest, and incidentally marrying a wife,, Amanda Hanby, 
the daughter of William Hanby, former Bishop. In taking the 
latter step, he annexed a missionary that served well in the 
foreign field, and has done a vast amount of good through the 
Women's Missionary association and otherwise in advancing 
the interests of missions. Mr. and Mrs. Billheimer sailed for 
Africa in September, 1862. Because of sickness, they were 
compelled to return to America in 1864, the work again being 
left in the hands of faithful Mr. Williams. Mr. 0. Hadley, a 
minister of St. Joseph conference, and his wife were sent out 
by the missionary board in October, 1866. They were excellent 
missionaries, but, after two and one-half years of service, 
they were compelled, on account of failure of health on the 
part of Mr. Hadley, to return to America. Mr. Hadley's 
death occurred immediately after their reaching home, the 
first death directly attributable to service in the African mis¬ 
sion. Again Mr. Williams becamejthe only missionary on the 
ground, but even he died before the next missionaries reached 
the field. 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


591 


What, in the circumstances, will the board do? What will 
the General Conference, soon to convene, do? The American 
Missionary association had been consulted, and was willing, 
on certain conditions, tp take over the mission. Some thought 
that there were plain providential indications that the mission 
should be discontinued. Others remained undaunted in the 
face of difficulties seemingly insurmountable. The result was 
a grim determination to continue and strengthen the mission, 
or at least to leave it in the hands of its friends, trusting in the 
direction and help from above. 

In December, 1870, Mr. J. Gomer and his wife embarked 
for Africa and reached their destination in January following. 
Mr. Gomer was a colored layman in the Third United Brethren 
Church (colored) Dayton. He was a man of rare common 
sense, with an earnest religious experience. In his work as a 
missionary, he went to the people as they were, and worked 
diligently for their good. His wife was a good helper. The 
African people were glad to have a colored man as their mis¬ 
sionary. From this time forward, the work of the mission 
prospered. Soon Mr. Gomer was given license to preach. He 
was a diplomat in settling differences among the people, his 
courage and fair mindedness giving him great influence among 
all classes. Mr. Gomer continued his labors, with intervals of 
rest and recuperation in America, until his death in the field of 
his toil in September, 1892. In 1871, Mrs. M. B. Hadley, 
whose husband died immediately on his return from Africa, 
and J. A. Evans, a member of the Michigan conference, a 
colored man, were sent to reinforce the workers in the African 
field. They were well suited to the work. 

In 1876, Daniel Flickinger Wilberforce and wife were sent 
out further to reinforce the work. Mr. Wilberforce, born in 
Africa, was named in honor of Mr. Flickinger. Years later, Mr. 
Flickinger, on speaking to a colored lad in New York, was sur¬ 
prised when the lad gave his name as Daniel Flickinger Wil¬ 
berforce. He brought him on to Dayton, where he was ed¬ 
ucated under the direction of the missionary board, with a 
view to his being sent back to his own people, whom he 
could address in the native Sherbro tongue. He was a man of 


592 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


rare mental strength and qualification, and long gave splendid 
service as a pastor and as a teacher in the training school. 
Later becoming paramount chief of his tribe, he was accused by 
the British Government of practicing or conniving at rites 
connected with cannibalism, and while not proven guilty, was 
banished from the country, but recently the order of banish¬ 
ment was revoked. The work of the mission continued to 
prosper. Societies of native Christians were formed in 1875, 
and in 1880 a mission conference was formed. So prosperous 
was the mission that in 1882 the American Missionary associa¬ 
tion was glad to turn over to the United Brethren Missionary 
board the entire neighboring Mendi mission, with subsidies 
for the support of the same amounting in seven years to nearly 
$39,000. In this time, the Freedmen’s Missions Aid society, of 
London, England, also turned over to the board $13,000. To 
help take care of the enlarging work, W. S. Sage and wife and 
J. M. Lesher and wife were sent as missionaries to Africa in 
1883. In 1887, the Rufus Clark and Wife Training school was 
opened for students, Daniel Flickinger Wilberforce being in 
charge. The splendid stone school building was made possible 
by a gift of $5,000 by Rufus Clark, of Denver, Colorado. 

Mr. D. K. Flickinger, who was made missionary Bishop 
in 1885, had at that time made ten visits of longer or shorter 
duration to the African mission, and to this number he added 
another visit, in his term as Bishop, and still another later, for 
the Radical United Brethren Church. No one can estimate the 
extent of his contribution to the success of the mission. Some 
that served in shorter terms or in special ways have not been 
named in the account of the mission as here given. The un¬ 
named native workers had an increasing share in the success 
achieved. 

The following tribute of Bishop Flickinger to his fellow 
workers that became connected with the African mission 
before 1889, when he ceased active connection with the mis¬ 
sion, justly may be given a place here: 

In Africa, there were a number of noble workers deserving 
high honor: Rev. J. K. Billheimer and wife, Doctor Witt, 
Rev. O. Hadley and wife, and Mr. Williams, the faithful native 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


593 


missionary who alone held the fort for several years and at a 
smaller salary than he had been getting as a clerk in a store in 
Freetown; Rev. J. Gomer and wife, who did more than any 
others to make Sherbo mission a success, and did it for many 
years in the face of great discouragements; Rev. J. A. Evans 
and wife, Mrs. Mair, Rev. R. N. West and wife, Rev. D. F. 
Wilberforce and wife, Rev. J. M. Lesher and wife, Rev. W. S. 
Sage and wife, and others. 

Rev. J. K. Billheimer did valuable service, especially in 
building houses, furnishing the heathen good rules to live by, 
and living a good life among them. Mr. Hadley and wife 
gave the heathen a good insight into true piety, illustrating 
the excellences of the Christian religion. Mr. Gomer and 
wife stayed with them longer than any others, and thus not 
only made their work permanent, but continually progressive. 
He was an excellent manager of the native headmen, and 
people generally. His method was to go to the common 
people in their rice fields and mud huts, showing them sympathy 
and giving religious instruction. Mrs. Gomer made an excel¬ 
lent home for missionaries, and did her part in going to meeting 
and doing her duty when there. She also taught many useful 
lessons to the boys and girls. Mr. Evans was a systematic 
preacher and bookkeeper, and his wife an excellent teacher of 
naked children. Mrs. Mair, with her good heart, ready wit, 
and good sense, could manage the natives well. She exerted 
a great influence over the natives, and could rebuke them for 
wrongs and retain their good will. 

As we go forward with the thread of the African mission 
the first and largest foreign mission of the Church, we may 
include in our survey, better here than elsewhere, some of the 
larger operations and results of the missionary work, and even 
the reconstruction of missionary plans and agencies, in order to 
meet new opportunities. The missionary work created a 
new constituency, and was the chief factor in building up 
what may be called the Larger United Brethren Church. 

When Mr. Flickinger was made missionary Bishop in 1885, 
Z. Warner, who might be called the father of the Parkersburg 
conference, and long had been one of the outstanding leaders 
of the Church, was elected missionary secretary. In 1887, 
he resigned this office and took up pastoral work at Gibbon, 
Nebraska, lecturing also at Gibbon Collegiate Institute. 
William McKee, the missionary treasurer, served the remainder 


594 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


of the quadrennium as acting missionary secretary. B. F. 
Booth, a leading minister of East Ohio conference, was elected 
missionary secretary in 1889. His earnest and successful course 
as missionary secretary was cut short by death March 9, 1893. 
His report to the General Conference, partly written, was 
completed by William McKee, missionary treasurer, again 
serving as acting missionary secretary. 

Mr. Gomer, the veteran missionary in Africa, after a 
service of twenty-two years, died at his post in 1892. For¬ 
tunately, six new missionaries, just at this time, October 1, 
1892, were embarking for the African field; namely, L. 0. 
Burtner and Wife, I. N. Cain and wife, P. 0. Bonebrake, and 
Miss Lydia Thomas. Mr. Burtner was to assume the respon¬ 
sibilities of superintendent. In the autumn of 1894, A. T. 
Howard and wife and J. R. King and wife, were added to the 
force of workers. Mr. Howard was given charge of the training 
school. Mr. King, in addition to general missionary work, did 
much in the superintendence of buildings under construction, 
and, in the absence of Mr. Burtner in 1896, was the superin¬ 
tendent of the mission. With the cooperation of the Women’s 
Board, Bethany Home, a rest place for missionaries was 
established on Mt. Leicester, near Freetown. The Bishops, in 
their address to the General Conference of 1897, said: “After 
more than forty years of toil and trial, our missionaries are 
beginning to see the dawn of a glorious day in Africa.” The 
number of church members was given as 5,583. The report of 
the Women’s Missionary association for 1897 was in like 
manner favorable. 

The following year came the native uprising in Africa, 
and the frightful destruction of life and property. Seven 
missionaries belonging to the mission of the Women’s Mission¬ 
ary association were slain, and the missionaries of the General 
Board barely saved themselves from the same fate by escaping 
by boat to Plantain island. Mr. and Mrs. Burtner were among 
those that thus escaped. Mr. and Mrs. Howard were on the 
ocean on their return home, and Mr. and Mrs. King already 
had reached America. More than a thousand persons, white 
and black, were the victims of the maddened fury of the 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


595 


natives, directed mainly against the English government, but 
also against everything foreign. I. N. Cain and wife, and 
Misses Marietta Hatfield, Ella Schenck, and Mary C. Archer 
were brutally killed May 3, 1898, in front of the mission 
grounds at Rotifunk. Their bones were gathered together by 
English officers, put into one box, and later were buried in the 
cemetery at Rotifunk. Mr. and Mrs. L. A. McGrew, who were 
stationed at Taiama, were held captive several days, but on 
May 9, were taken out to an island on the Taia river, where 
they were beheaded. The bodies were thrown into the river 
and never recovered. 

About two years earlier, the English government had 
established a protectorate reaching far into the interior, and to 
secure money for the improvement of the country had levied 
a hut tax on the houses of the people. This was the immediate 
occasion of the uprising, but the real causes were the efforts of 
the government to suppress slavery and cannibalism and 
restrict Purro, a mixture of native law, superstition, and craft. 
The war was the last effort of heathenism to bar out Christian¬ 
ity and civilization. The destruction and pillage of property 
were almost complete. The missionaries that escaped, seeing 
no prospect of work being resumed, soon departed for America. 
The Church at home was stunned by the blow, but soon 
rallied to begin the work anew. Mission boys, without sug¬ 
gestion or help from without, gathered together the members 
and adherents of the mission, and carried on itinerant work, 
extending to many towns. The Women's Missionary associa¬ 
tion and the General Board counseled together, and in the fall 
of 1898 sent J. R. King and wife to resume the work of the mis¬ 
sion. Mr. King was to be the representative of both boards. 
For fourteen years, with three short intervals in the homeland, 
Mr. and Mrs. King devoted themselves to the African mission, 
already having served four years in this field. 

For several years following the losses by the insurrection, 
estimates of the number of members in the African mission 
were mere guesses. In 1902, the number was given as 327, a 
tremendous falling off from the number 5,583 reported before 
the uprising. The apparent falling off was owing largely to a 


596 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


different system of reporting. Leaders in general missionary 
work were insisting that only those that were properly com¬ 
municants, not seekers or probationers or adherents, should 
be reported. This was a good time to adopt this new plan, 
and since it has been adhered to closely. For a number of years 
the report of members showed an almost uniform, though 
slow, increase. 

In 1902, the General Board and the Women's Missionary 
association entered more fully on joint work and joint super¬ 
intendency in Africa. At the General Conference of 1905, 
W. M. Bell, who had been missionary secretary since 1893, was 
elected Bishop, and S. S. Hough was elected foreign missionary 
secretary. At this time, the work of Home Missions was com¬ 
mitted to a separate board, with C. Whitney as secretary. 
Constitutions for both boards, carefully drawn, were adopted. 
In 1909, further changes were made in the constitution of the 
Foreign Missionary society, according to which the Women’s 
Missionary association makes appropriations to a common 
missionary fund and cooperates in all matters of administra¬ 
tion, having on the board of directors three members chosen 
by the trustees of the Women’s Missionary association, and 
on the executive committee two members chosen by the 
Women’s Missionary association. 

S. S. Hough, who was elected missionary secretary in 
1905, continued to serve with great earnestness and efficiency 
until 1918, when he was chosen executive secretary of the Board 
of Administration to take the place of J. S. Kendall, who had 
resigned. Bishop A. T. Howard performed the duties of 
missionary secretary until 1921, when S. G. Ziegler was elected 
to the position. Some of the missionaries, aside from those 
already named, that in recent years have served extended 
terms in Africa are the following: Miss Minnie Eaton and 
Miss A. Eliza Akin, 1894 to the present time, thirty years on 
the field; R. P. Dougherty, 1904 to 1913, principal of Albert 
Academy, for a time acting United States consul at Freetown; 
E. M. Hursh, 1905 to 1921, teacher and principal in Albert 
Academy and mission superintendent; E. Kingman, 1907 to 
1918, teacher in industrial work; Alice Dougherty (Mrs. J. F. 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


597 


Musselman) 1907 to 1924; J. F. Musselman, 1908 to 1924, 
present superintendent; J. Hal Smith, 1909 to 1915, missionary 
in the Kono country; Mrs. J. Hal Smith 1909 to 1914; F. A. 
Risley, 1909 to 1924, manual training; W. N. Wimmer and 
wife, 1910 to 1924; Miss Etta Odle, 1910 to 1924; D. E. Weidler, 
1912 to 1921, principal of Albert Academy. 

Some of the advances on the material side were the fol¬ 
lowing: The securing of a large church property in Freetown 
in 1905; the erection of a large and imposing building for 
Albert Academy in 1907, named in honor of I. E. Albert, who 
lost his life in Africa in 1902; the completion of a home for 
missionary headquarters in Freetown; the building of the 
Martyrs Memorial church at Rotifunk in 1902, largely by 
money given by the natives; the building of the Hatfield- 
Archer dispensary in 1906; the Girls’ home at Moyamba; 
Boys’ home at Taiama; more than a dozen churches, each 
with its own school, in the Sherbro country; establishments for 
manual and agricultural training; coffee and rubber planta¬ 
tions; and a printing plant. 

The report of the African mission for 1928 shows a church 
membership of 1507; organized churches, thirty; active itiner¬ 
ants, twenty-four. While in all these years no rapid advance 
has been made, many souls have been saved, whole districts 
have been enlightened and helped, the Church at home has 
received more than it has given, and hopes yet to see greater 
results in what even now is pronounced by careful critics of 
mission work to be one of the most successful Christian mis¬ 
sions on the West Coast of Africa. No mission has had better 
success in testing out agricultural methods, and the growing of 
coffee and rubber trees. Christianization should carry with it 
the capacity to live in civilization. 

The Women’s Missionary Association. 

The beginning for women’s missionary societies most 
properly may be dated back to 1834, when the “Society for 
Promoting Female Education in the East” was formed in 
England. The first general women’s missionary society in the 
United States was the Women’s Union Missionary society, 


598 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


founded in 1861, while the first women's denominational board 
was formed in 1868, in cooperation with the American Board. 
Thus, the women of the United Brethren Church, in beginning 
to organize for mission work in 1872, were early in the field. 
As the question of priority of organization has been discussed 
much, it may be noticed that the women of the Ohio German 
conference formed “The Sisters' Missionary society" in May, 
1869. This society confined its efforts to the field of the Ohio 
German conference. The women of the California conference 
formed a foreign missionary society, probably May 4, 1872. 
This was under the prompting of D. K. Flickinger, missionary 
secretary. For a dozen years he did not again visit the Cali¬ 
fornia conference, and nothing further was heard of the Wom¬ 
en's Missionary society of that conference. The Women’s 
Missionary association of the United Brethren Church properly 
dates its origin back to the formation of the Miami Branch 
association, May 9, 1872, in the Home Street church (now 
Euclid Avenue), Dayton, Ohio. The constitution then and 
there adopted became the model for other branch organiza¬ 
tions. The following was the list of officers: President, Mrs. 
T. N. Sowers; vice president, Mrs. D. L. Rike; secretary, Miss 
Katie Ells; corresponding secretary, Miss Lizzie Hoffman; 
treasurer, Mrs. L. Davis; directors, Mrs. W. J. Shuey, Mrs. 
H. K. Hoffman, Mrs. H. Schenck, and Mrs. G. Brady. The 
definite and urgent prompting of this new venture at mission¬ 
ary work was through the heart and prayer of Miss Lizzie 
Hoffman. 

The General Conference meeting in May, 1873, through 
its committee on missions said: “Your committee is pleased 
to learn that God has put it into the hearts of the devoted 
women of the Church to organize women’s missionary associa¬ 
tions in the various annual conferences; and we mention it to 
the special credit of the women of the Miami annual conference 
that they were the first in the whole denomination, so far as 
known, to organize an association and commence operations." 

The women of the White River conference organized a 
branch association November 24, 1873. At the meeting of the 
general Board of Missions in 1874, representatives of the 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


599 


Women's Missionary association of the Miami branch were 
present and took part in the discussions. A resolution was' 
passed urging the formation of a “General Women's Mission¬ 
ary Society." At a meeting in September, 1875, at which only 
six women representing the Miami Conference branch were 
present, it was resolved to send out a call for a women's mis¬ 
sionary convention. The convention met October 21, 1875, at 
the First United Brethren Church, Dayton, Ohio. Nine an¬ 
nual conferences responded by sending delegates, and other 
conferences were represented by members of those conferences 
residing in Dayton. Two days were spent in consultation and 
planning. A constitution was adopted, and the “Women's 
Missionary association" was organized, with the following 
officers elected: President, Mrs. T. N. Sowers; vice presidents, 
Mrs. Z. A. Colestock, Mrs. M. B. (Hadley) Bridgeman, and 
Mrs. S. Haywood; corresponding secretary, Mrs. L. R. Keister 
(Harford); recording secretary, Mrs. D. L. Rike; treasurer, 
Mrs. W. J. Shuey. 

In 1883, provision was made for Young Women's bands, 
and in 1908 for a young women’s department, which took the 
name in 1913 of the Otterbein Guild. Gleaners bands were 
first organized in 1897. These were succeeded in 1909 by a 
regular Junior Department. 

In January, 1882, The Woman's Evangel appeared as the 
official periodical of the association, the name being changed in 
1918 to The Evangel. The long-term editors of The Evangel 
have been Mrs. L. R. Harford, from 1882 to 1893; Mrs. L. K. 
Miller from 1893 to 1904; Mrs. Mary Albert (Hough) 1905 to 
1914. Others have served well, though for shorter terms. The 
presidents of the association have been: Mrs. T. N. Sowers, 
from 1875 to 1879; Mrs. Sylvia Haywood, 1879 to 1887; Mrs. 
L. K. Miller, from 1887 to 1905; Mrs. L. R. Harford, from 1906 
to the present time. Miss Vera Blinn began service with 
the association as secretary of Young Women's work in 1912, 
served as editor of The Evangel from 1917 to 1920, and secre¬ 
tary and treasurer from 1919 to 1920, when her consecrated 
career was closed by death. No nobler company of women 


600 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


could be named than those that have inspired and directed the 
activities of the Women’s Missionary association. 

The peculiarity of the Women’s Missionary association 
was in that it chose its own fields, appointed its own mission¬ 
aries, and managed its own work, of course, in harmony with 
the General Board. More of cooperation was introduced in 
1902, and full cooperation was entered on in 1909. The Wom¬ 
en’s Missionary association brought into the partnership three 
fields—China, the Philippines, and a distinct district in Africa; 
thirty-six missionaries, three physicians, sixty native workers, 
twenty-three organized churches, and property valued at 
$98,000, being almost the exact valuation of the property of 
the General Board. Of the missionaries of the association not 
already mentioned that served for a long period in Africa were: 
R. N. West and wife, who served from 1882 to 1894, at which 
time Mr. West died at his post in Africa, after a career of unu¬ 
sual influence and usefulness. Other workers of the association 
will be noticed in connection with different fields occupied. 

In all, the association, since its organization in 1875 to 
the present time, has collected and applied for all purposes, 
$1,978,408.05. Its fiftieth anniversary was celebrated appro¬ 
priately in May, 1922. As a jubilee fund, the association 
raised $75,000 for the endowment of a chair of missions in 
Bonebrake Theological Seminary. The association, through 
The Evangel and successive editions of the History of the 
Association, has provided a very full record of its own work and 
workers, and, to a considerable extent, of the field and mission¬ 
aries of the General Board. The reports for the year 1923-4 
showed a membership for the locals of the Women’s Missionary 
association of 40,397, and for the Otterbein Guilds of 15,807, 
and total recipts of $156,242. 

Germany. 

In turning to Africa, the Church went to a long disowned 
and oppressed brother, but in turning to Germany it went to 
destitute brethren within the precincts of the old home. In a 
church built up mostly out of German stock, and believing that 
it had come to possess spiritual blessings imperfectly known in 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


601 


the old home, what could be more natural than that it should 
seek to carry its new-found possessions to the Fatherland? 
Joseph Cook and other religious leaders have said that Ger¬ 
many stopped with the Reformation of the sixteenth century, 
which emphasized the doctrine of justification by faith, and 
never really faced the special doctrine of regeneration or con¬ 
version, as emphasized in the Reformation of the eighteenth 
century, whose field for greatest development was in Great 
Britain and America. Yet this well-intended help from a new 
and far-off land was destined to meet with vexatious interfer¬ 
ence from personal dislike and hard-crusted institutions in 
Germany. It is not most pleasant to give an account of a 
venture that resulted to a large extent in failure, and yet 
the efforts put forth were worthy, and the failure was not all 
failure. 

The German mission was begun in 1869, at the time when 
hope for the success of the African mission was almost aban¬ 
doned. The first missionaries sent out were Christian Bischoff 
and wife. Mr. Bischoff s home had been in Naila, Bavaria, 
where he had become the leader of a company of inquirers, as 
we would call them, under the name of “The Christian Asso¬ 
ciation of Naila/' for which they had the permission of the 
king's court. He came to America, “was thoroughly converted,'' 
joined the United Brethren Church, and received license to 
preach from the Ohio German conference. As a missionary, 
he went directly to the small flock with which he was associated 
a few years before, and soon built up a nucleus for a promising 
work. At first, a society was formed that left relationship in the 
established churches undisturbed. But, when the observance 
of the ordinances of the Church was undertaken, decided 
opposition was encountered. Permission to organize a United 
Brethren Church was refused. Restrictions, fines, and force 
did not entirely avail to defeat the work, and yet the larger suc¬ 
cess was outside of Bavaria, where restrictions were not so 
severe. Mr. Bischoff was a man of considerable means, gave 
his own money freely, and after his death his wife willed 
$10,000 as an endowment for the German work. In 1884, Mr. 
Bischoff, on account of age, resigned as superintendent, and 


602 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


J. Sick, of the Ohio German conference, took his place, serving 
for three years. 

In 1880, the Women's Missionary association opened a 
missionary station at Coburg, where a neat chapel was built. 
A respectable work was maintained here for a time, but, as the 
embarrassments in connection with carrying on a separate 
work were great, the station was turned over to the General 
Board in 1889. Money that had been collected by the Women's 
Missionary association for a chapel in Germany was afterward 
turned over to the General Board toward the erection of an 
excellent church building at Weimar, which was dedicated in 
1896. 

The third missionary superintendent from America was 
E. Lorenz, of the Ohio German conference, whose service of 
nearly four years closed with 1893. The mission not only had 
the aid of these able and devoted superintendents from Ameri¬ 
ca, but also the guidance and help of capable and faithful 
superintendents and workers raised up through the mission 
itself. Bishops and officers of the missionary society made 
frequent visits to the field. Germany was constituted a mission 
district in 1880, and a missionary conference in 1893. The 
maximum number of missionary workers employed was ten or 
twelve, and the highest membership was about one thousand. 
As many as nine church houses were reported in 1901. Yet the 
work came almost to a standstill, and without a large increase 
of funds, for which there was little hope, any considerable suc¬ 
cess seemed impossible. Thus the General Conference in 1905 
decided on withdrawing from the field and concentrating the 
efforts of the Church elswehere. By arrangement, the Method¬ 
ist Episcopal church took over the membership and property 
belonging to the mission, to be cared for in connection with the 
large and well-established missionary work of that church. 

China. 

A stepping-stone to China was the taking over by the 
Women's Missionary association of a school for Chinese at 
Portland, Oregon, in 1882. The school had been carried on by 
Moy Ling, a Christian Chinese, who, after the school was 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


603 


transferred, continued to give his services to the same. Mrs. 
Ellen Sickafoose was in charge from 1882 to 1893. From this 
time until 1898, Mrs. M. E. Henkle was in charge. Great good 
was done in these years, but, in consequence of changed condi¬ 
tions, the school was discontinued in 1893, and in 1906 the 
mission property was sold for $7,000, which sum was set apart 
for beginning work in China. It should be added that in 1891 
help began to be given toward the establishment of a church in 
Portland, and in the course of eight years the amount of $12,- 
666.68 was expended by the Association for this purpose. 

At the meeting of the board of managers of the Women’s 
Missionary association in May, 1889, it was decided to send to 
China George Sickafoose, a minister of St. Joseph conference, 
who had for a time assisted his wife in the Chinese school in 
Portland, along with Moy Ling, to locate a mission in China. 
Along with them were sent Miss Australia Patterson and Miss 
Lillian Shaffner. This party of four reached Hong Kong 
October 31, 1889, and at once began to prospect for a location. 
Mr. Sickafoose and Moy Ling went forward to Canton. Mr. 
Sickafoose was a man of towering form and large build, and 
made as much of an impression on the crowded masses of di¬ 
minutive Chinese as they did on him. A location was chosen 
on the south side of the Pearl river, opposite the main city of 
Canton. This was on the island of Honam, with a population 
of 400,000, among whom but one missionary was at work. 
Mr. Sickafoose returned to America the following June, and 
Miss Shaffner, because of ill health, returned in October of the 
same year. Miss Patterson, the remaining missionary, gave 
herself to acquiring the Chinese language, and soon, with the 
aid of a Bible woman, began house-to-house visiting. Doctor 
and Mrs. Kerr, of the Presbyterian mission, gave Miss Patter¬ 
son a kindly home until the arrival of Dr. Lovina Halverson, 
in the fall of 1891. Regina M. Bigler, M.D., began her long 
career as a medical missionary in connection with the mission 
in the fall of 1892. In 1894, Doctor Halverson nearly lost her 
life in an attack by a mob, and Doctor Bigler likewise was 
attacked and her life menaced. The Chinese believed that a 
scourge of the bubonic plague was due to the presence of 


604 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


foreigners. Dr. H. K. Shumaker reached China in the fall of 
1897, and, in addition to his medical work, superintended the 
building of a residence called Beth Eden in the locality before 
indicated, though a title to the land was not secured until 
February, 1898. Early in 1898, E. B. Ward and wife entered 
upon their long connection with the mission. Doctor Shu¬ 
maker and Miss Patterson were united in marriage in 1902. 
As the missionaries named returned to America for recupera¬ 
tion or closed their term of work, others came to join the force 
of workers—Mr. and Mrs. C. E. Spore in 1902; Mr. and Mrs. 
E. I. Doty in 1903; Mr. and Mrs. B. F. Bean, Miss Belle Myers, 
and Dr. Frank Oldt in 1905. January 4 and 5, 1908, a mission 
conference was organized, composed of all the missionaries and 
eight Chinese workers, Bishop J. S. Mills officiating. 

Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Shoop entered on their work in 
China in 1912. Since 1917 Mr. Shoop has been superintendent 
of the mission. Mr. and Mrs. F. W. Davis served in the mis¬ 
sion from 1912 to 1918. Mr. Davis as pastor at Siu Lam, and 
as general evangelist was instrumental in greatly extending 
and building up the work. Other devoted and well-equipped 
workers have entered the field in more recent years, among 
them A. D. Cook, M.D., in 1919, in charge of the Ramsberg 
hospital at Siu Lam. Dr. Oldt is now connected with the 
Union Canton hospital. 

The work of the mission has been advanced through the 
preaching of itinerants and the formation of local churches, 
through the conducting of day schools for boys and girls, 
through boarding schools, through dispensaries and hospitals, 
and through participation in interdenominational work. Some 
of these features should receive further notice. 

A second center for evangelistic work was Siu Lam, a 
“village” of 400,000 or more, fifty miles south of Canton. 
Work was begun here in 1899, and in 1907 a church was or¬ 
ganized. F. W. Davis, missionary in China from 1912 to 1918, 
conducted a revival in Siu Lam in 1915, in which one hundred 
and fourteen decisions were made in four days. In 1918, an 
extensive revival occurred in Canton. A number of churches are 
self-supporting and a home missionary society is in operation. 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


605 


A girls’ boarding school was opened in Canton in 1901, of 
which Miss Belle Myers took charge in 1905, serving until 
1921. In 1909, it was given the name, “The Elizabeth Kumler- 
Miller Seminary for Girls.” In 1913, the school was moved to 
Siu Lam, Miss Myers and Miss Mabel Drury, with thirteen of 
the girls, with the school belongings, going by boat to the new 
location and beginning school work in very unsuitable quarters. 
Here now are a splendid seminary building, first occupied in 
1917, a well-appointed church building, residences, other 
school buildings, a dispensary and hospital dedicated in 1919. 
The medical work, with dispensaries and hospitals, is the ex¬ 
planation of much of the success of the Chinese mission. In 
the dispensary at Canton, some twenty thousand cases were 
taken care of in a single year. Doctor Bigler’s success and 
influence have been manifest in all of the years of her service. 

In addition to the strongly denominational work, the 
United Brethren Mission has cooperated in several union edu¬ 
cational enterprises; as in a union normal school for young 
women, a boys’ middle and high school, and the Canton Union 
Theological College. An important step was taken in 1919, 
when a church federation was formed embracing the missions 
of the American board, the London Missionary society, the 
Scandanavian alliance, and later the United Brethren mission, 
the final goal to be the development of a Chinese Christian 
church. 


Japan. 

When in 1895 the Board of Home, Frontier, and Foreign 
missions was planning the establishment of a new foreign 
mission, the place naturally selected was Japan. Japan was in 
general favor because of her progressiveness. Yet the feeling 
of equality, if not of superiority, characterizing the Japanese 
made this missionary venture different from those that previ¬ 
ously had been undertaken. The beginnings of the mission 
apparently were auspicious. George K. Irie, a native Japanese, 
who had been in America a number of years, and for a time had 
been pursuing post-graduate work in Lebanon Valley College, 
and another native Japanese sojourning in America, were 


606 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


appointed the first missionaries. With full credentials, they 
began work in their native land in the fall of 1895. Everything 
was favorable and hopeful at first. Some native leaders that 
already had formed churches, or at least had a following at 
different places, some of them being important centers, joined 
the newly-arrived missionaries, and the work at once assumed 
large proportions, but Mr. Irie’s social connections, and the 
want of character or responsibility on the part of some of the 
newly enlisted helpers, brought a quick reaction and created 
difficulties that were hard to overcome. Yet some of the work 
was done sincerely, and the missionaries coming later followed 
to some extent the traces that first were made. Thus, down to 
this time, the work in Japan has been largely in the great 
centers and in the best known parts of the country. 

Mr. A. T. Howard arrived in Japan as superintendent of 
the mission in the summer of 1898, Mrs. Howard joining him 
the following year. He continued in the work of the mission 
until 1913, at the same time having entrusted to him large 
tasks and responsibilities in the interdenominational work in 
Japan. Slowly, but on a reliable basis, the work of the mission 
was enlarged and strengthened, becoming thus one of the real 
factors in the Christianizing of Japan. 

J. Edgar Knipp and wife arrived as missionaries in 1900. 
After a sojourn in America for regaining health, they took 
up anew their work in Japan. They have come close to the 
hearts of the Japanese. Joseph Cosand, having had experience 
in another mission in Japan, became attached to the United 
Brethren mission. He carried out various activities, and had 
a great influence in the country. His work began in 1901 and 
continued until 1920. Mrs. Cosand was a valuable helper until 
the time of her death in 1915. Monroe Crecelius was the first 
missionary to lay down his life in Japan. He died in 1907, 
after two years of service. B. F. Shively and wife began work 
in Japan in 1907, in which work they still are engaged. Mr. 
Shively represents the United Brethren mission as professor of 
religious education in the Doshisha University. Others that 
have taken up work in this field are Miss Ellen Moore (1912); 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


607 


Mr. and Mrs. Warren Hayes (1916) and Mr. Floyd Roberts 
(1921). 

The Japanese mission conference was organized in 1902. 
The foremost native Japanese preacher was Takejiro Ishigura, 
who studied for a time in America. After a most useful career, 
he died in 1914. Other Japanese pastors have preached faith¬ 
fully and well. 

The earthquake in Japan, September 1, 1923, brought a 
great calamity to the United Brethren mission, as it did to so 
many other interests in that country. The loss in life, mental 
distress, and the derangement of all kinds of work, fell with 
special force on all missionary work. To restore and repair the 
property of the United Brethren mission will cost forty or fifty 
thousand dollars. None of the United Brethren missionaries 
lost their lives, though many in the native churches lost their 
lives and others all their worldly possessions. 

Porto Rico. 

After the annexation of Porto Rico to the United States, 
following the Spanish-American war, patriotic as well as 
religious motives prompted the sending of missionaries to that 
island. Sent by the General Board, Mr. and Mrs. N. H. 
Huffman arrived in Porto Rico July 28, 1899, and began work 
in Ponce, a city of 30,000 inhabitants, located in the south 
central part of the island. By agreement with other denom¬ 
inations entering on work in this new field, this part of the 
island was assigned to the United Brethren. 

The following steps of progress may be noted: The or¬ 
ganization of a church in Ponce in 1900, the opening of work 
in the promising field of Juana Diaz in 1901 and the inviting 
field of Yauco in 1907, the building in the mountains of a rest 
cottage in 1911, called Mt. Hermon, and the building of 
numerous churches at different times. The progress of the 
Porto Rico mission may be accounted for in large part by the 
long term of service of the respective missionaries, those still 
in the field being N. H. Huffman and wife from 1889, Philo W. 
Drury and wife from 1901, Elizabeth Reed and I. E. Caldwell 
and wife from 1907, and C. I. Mohler and wife from 1908. The 


608 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


superintendents have been successively, N. H. Huffman, now 
representing the Evangelical Union of Porto Rico in Santo 
Domingo, Philo W. Drury, now the executive secretary and 
the publisher of the Evangelical Union of Porto Rico, and I. E. 
Caldwell, the present superintendent. 

The most noteworthy thing in connection with mission 
work in Porto Rico is the close cooperation of the forces at 
work there. In 1923, the Porto Rican church celebrated the 
twenty-fifth anniversary of the opening of Protestant mission¬ 
ary work in the island. Seven different churches, and the 
Union church, and Young Men's Christian association of San 
Juan constitute the Evangelical Union of Porto Rico, which has 
been in existence for eight years. In this union of effort, the 
United Brethren mission has had a leading and responsible 
part. Through the Evangelical Union and the comity of the 
different denominations at work in Porto Rico, the United 
Brethren mission has the advantage of excellent high school 
privileges, and the advantage of the Union Theological Sem¬ 
inary and other helpful means and influences. The following 
summaries indicate the present status of the mission: Organ¬ 
ized churches, 25; pastors and trained workers, 25; church 
membership, 1,730; church houses and chapels, 18; value of 
church property, $81,000. 

The Philippines. 

The Philippine Islands, like Porto Rico, after being subject 
to Spanish misrule and the misguidance of a sordid Roman 
priesthood for more than three and a half centuries, now were 
open for the introduction of evangelical Christianity, a higher 
morality, and a truer civilization. The nominal Christianity 
existing interposed barriers and difficulties as real as those 
coming from lands not bearing the Christian name. While 
the problems were different, the needs were the same. A vital 
ethical Christianity, with the development of a complete life 
was the great need of the people, and this the missionaries 
came to supply. 

The Women's Missionary association, after much thought 
and prayer, decided to establish a mission in the Philippine 


FOREIGN MISSIONS 


609 


Islands, and in 1901 sent out Sanford B. Kurtz and Edwin S. 
Eby as the first missionaries. By an apportionment made by 
the denominations working in the Philippines, the United 
Brethren Church was given three provinces in the northwestern 
part of the island of Luzon—Ilocos North, Uocos South, and 
La Union. The province first named was assigned to the 
Methodists soon afterward, but new territory later was given 
to the United Brethren. In the fall of 1901, L. 0. Burtner and 
wife, whose way at the time seemed closed for a return to 
Africa, were sent to assist in founding the mission. Every¬ 
where, opposition came from the Catholic church, and likewise 
other serious difficulties presented themselves. Mr. Kurtz 
entered Young Men's Christian Association work, and by 1904, 
all of the missionaries named had withdrawn from the mission. 
Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Widdoes, who had arrived in 1903, es¬ 
tablished headquarters at San Fernando. Soon encouraging 
signs began to appear. Mr. M. W. Mumma and wife were sent 
out to the mission in 1904, and E. J. Pace and wife the following 
year. In 1904, the first church was organized. Special atten¬ 
tion was given to Sunday school work. Bible institutes were 
held. A mission conference was organized in 1908. Mr. 
Mumma read and corrected the manuscript translation of the 
Old Testament into Ilocano, and supervised its publication in 
Japan in 1909. The New Testament previously had been 
translated. In September, 1905, the mission began the publi¬ 
cation of a weekly newspaper under the name “Dagiti Naim- 
bag a Damag” (Good News), which has had a circulation far 
beyond the mission and has aided greatly in the work of 
evangelization, and has met a wide-felt want as a means of 
spreading intelligence. Leaflets and tracts also were published. 
In 1920, three million pages of matter were printed and dis¬ 
tributed. 

The Young Women's Bible Training school was opened in 
1910 by Miss Matilda Weber, who joined the forces of the 
mission in that year. It has done a great amount of good by 
training young women for deaconess work. For the use of this 
school, a large and substantial building was completed in 1920. 

Miss May Cooley (Mrs. C. C. Witmer) joined the mission 


610 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


forces in 1914, and C. C. Witmer the following year. Under the 
superintendence of Mr. Widdoes, who still is in charge as 
superintendent, the work of the mission has had a steady, and 
at times phenomenal growth. At the close of 1923, the church 
membership numbered 3,444. 

Inasmuch as Manila is the gateway to the Islands, and as 
all of the denominations have freedom to carry on mission work 
here, especially in view of the location here of the Union Theo¬ 
logical Seminary, the United Brethren mission opened a station 
in this large city, in which are thirty-one thousand Ilocanos, 
organizing a church and establishing a dormitory in 1912. 
Also, in 1912, it built a rest cottage at Baguio, situated 5,000 
feet above sea level. 

The following is a summary of the mission work of the 
Church in the five mission fields occupied for the year 1923: 
Foreign missionaries, 76; native preachers, 94; total native 
workers, 220; organized churches, 123; other preaching places, 
987; communicant members, 9,286; Sunday schools, 130; 
Sunday school enrollment, 8,788; senior C. E. societies, 41; 
senior C. E. members, 1,184; junior C. E. societies, 45; junior 
C. E. members, 1,507; day and boarding schools, 68; pupils in 
day and boarding schools, 2,782; union schools in cooperation 
with other churches, 6; dispensaries and hospitals, 12; cases 
treated last year, 46,468; value of church houses, $257,417; 
value of missionary residences, $207,224; value of parsonages 
for native pastors, $24,518; value of schools and other property, 
$223,743; total value of property, $712,902. 


CHAPTER III. 

ORGANIZATIONS FOR HOME WORK 
Home Missions—Church Erection. 

/ 'y ^ HE history of home missions has been traced up to 
a 1853, at which time home missions were compelled to 
divide attention with foreign missions. We may now 
again take up the thread of home missions as these were 
conducted first under the direction of the Home, Frontier, and 
Foreign Missionary society as constituted in 1853, and as con¬ 
ducted since 1905 by a distinct home missionary society. In 
consequence of the close relation of home missions and church 
erection, and the action of the General Conference in uniting the 
home missions and church-erection boards, these two interests 
are brought within the present chapter. 

The different annual conferences maintained their confer¬ 
ence home missionary societies. The money that was retained 
after the amounts were paid over that were to go to the General 
Board for frontier and foreign missionary work was applied by 
the conferences within their own bounds. In addition to super¬ 
vising somewhat and stimulating this strictly home-missionary 
work in the annual conferences, the General Board had a 
definite frontier work to direct and finance either within the 
bounds of mission districts and conferences or at selected loca¬ 
tions beyond. All of this may be called home missions, but it 
falls into two distinct classes according to the source of control 
and support. After 1869 the annual conferences were required 
to give a stipulated proportion of the missionary money 
raised by them to the General Board. As shown by a survey 
made by J. C. Bright, the missionary secretary, prior to the 
first annual meeting of the missionary board in 1854, fourteen 
annual conferences (the Virginia conference not reporting) had 
eighty-seven missions and seven hundred forty-five preaching 
places. The scanty amounts paid to the preachers on these 
missions were supplemented by yet scantier amounts given 


611 


612 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


from the funds raised in the conferences for home missions. 
And yet the meager support from these two sources, coupled 
with the enthusiasm and purpose of the preachers, kept this 
large force in the field. While these home missions were a 
matter for the conferences themselves, the General Board re¬ 
quired and received annually regular reports as to what mis¬ 
sions were being served and with what success, and thus con¬ 
tributed greatly to their maintenance and efficiency. Instead 
of every annual conference having exclusive charge of missions 
within its boundaries, the General Conference declared in 1877 
that the missionary board should be permitted to open and 
operate missions within the bounds of any annual conference, 
jointly with the conference or independently, by the consent 
of such conference. Beginning with 1893, this permission came 
to be used largely and efficiently. 

The frontier missionary work, as promoted by the General 
Board was a large and responsible work from the first. The 
frontier mission fields named in the minutes of the first annual 
meeting of the General Board were the Oregon, Southwestern 
Missouri, Canada, Michigan, and German settlements in Ohio 
and Indiana. To all of these except Michigan, help was given 
for the following year. In addition, within the year, the 
executive committee sent Israel Sloane and two others to 
Canada; W. A. Cardwell to Kansas; and H. Kumler, Jr., to 
Nebraska. S. S. Snyder was preaching in Kansas and J. Terrel 
in Missouri. The optimism of Mr. Bright, the missionary 
secretary, is shown in the following recommendation, con¬ 
tained in his first quadrennial report made to the General 
Conference of 1857: 'The organization of new mission con¬ 
ferences with the names following is suggested: Canada, 
Tennessee, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Califor¬ 
nia, New York, and New England. This recommendation 
may be received with a smile, but it can be supported, I hope, 
by the most convincing reasons." Some of the conferences 
named already had been operating as conferences, but the 
authorization of the General Conference was desired. Others 
named were delayed in taking rank as conferences, but all of 
them came into existence sooner or later, even New England 


ORGANIZATIONS FOR HOME WORK 


613 


and New York, under the name of Erie. Also, in the follow¬ 
ing action of the Board of Missions in 1857, we have the germ 
of a church erection society: “Resolved, That the board fully 
approves the act of the executive committee in obtaining for 
and distributing to mission ground in Kansas and Nebraska a 
certain amount of funds for church erection, although said act 
was not authorized by the board.” The formation of annual 
conferences will be noticed in other connections, but the fore¬ 
going has been given that we may recognize the great zeal and 
activity of the Church in the early era of home missions in doing 
her part in laying the foundations for a Christian America. 

In 1863, to 1866, much interest was manifested in estab¬ 
lishing and maintaining a mission for the benefit of freedmen 
at Vicksburg, Mississippi. Large sums of money were col¬ 
lected and spent in supplying missionaries and teachers and 
furnishing supplies, and much good was accomplished; but, 
with a change in conditions, the mission was discontinued. 
One of the teachers sent to Vicksburg was Miss Sarah Dickey. 
After her service there, feeling her need of preparation, she 
completed a course at Mt. Holyoke Seminary, and went to 
Clinton, Mississippi, to establish a like seminary for colored 
girls. Her Mt. Hermon Seminary became a monument to her 
toil and sacrifices. She died January 23, 1904. 

A mission among the freedmen in the Shenandoah valley, 
Virginia, was conducted for about twenty years, beginning in 
1874, J. A. Evans, a colored preacher, who served earlier and 
also later in Africa, being for a number of years the chief 
missionary. While good work was done, the results were not 
large or enduring. 

Although the privilege was given to the General Board in 
1877 to enter the territory of self-sustaining annual conferences, 
with the consent of the same, as well as what was called frontier 
territory, that privilege first was exercised in a considerable 
degree beginning with 1889. In the quadrennium following, 
twenty-three charges in the territories of different conferences 
were given direct aid. In the twelve years following, ten to 
twelve presiding elders, and as many as seventy local churches, 
were receiving direct assistance at one time. The policy of 


614 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


furnishing money through which the salaries of many mission¬ 
aries in frontier conferences received a small supplement 
answered well at the first; but the time for new frontiers was 
fast passing, and sound policy dictated that larger sums of 
money should be placed at strategic or hopeful places in any 
and all parts of the Church, with a view to the establishing of 
strong and permanent churches, and the fuller occupation of 
the territory near and far. 

In many places, the annual conferences joined with the 
General Board in the support of churches in what were regarded 
hopeful locations. 

As time passed, the work of home missions became so 
distinct and important that it was deemed best to separate it 
from connection with the foreign work, and entrust its manage¬ 
ment to a separate board. Thus, in 1905 distinct constitutions 
were prepared and adopted by the General Conference for the 
two boards. These constitutions were framed carefully to 
suit the new conditions and answer the larger requirements 
that the Church now was facing. C. Whitney was made secre¬ 
tary of the Home Missionary society. At the close of the first 
quadrennium, he reported as receiving aid from the Home 
Missionary board, one hundred and eleven pastors, six presiding 
elders, four evangelists, one organizer, and one field secretary. 
At the time, twenty-seven churches were receiving substantial 
aid, and sixty others were receiving minor amounts. Promo¬ 
tional work of various kinds was established. A beginning was 
made in organizing a Women's Home Missionary society. The 
merging in 1909 of the foreign work of the Women's Missionary 
association with the work of the Foreign Board carried with it 
the provision that the Women’s Missionary association should 
have representation on the Foreign Board and on its executive 
committee. A like provision was embraced in the constitution 
of the Home Missionary society, although the Woman's 
Missionary association had no home work to support. The 
association accordingly gave the large amount of its support to 
the Foreign Board, upon which fell the burden of caring for 
all of the foreign work. This was objected to seriously by the 
representatives of the Home Board, and furnished an occasion 


ORGANIZATIONS FOR HOME WORK 


615 


for pressing for distinct women's home mission auxiliaries. 
Gradually increased appropriations for home missions were 
made by the Women’s Missionary association, and all occasion 
for local women’s home missionary organizations was removed. 

Just prior to the General Conference of 1913, property was 
purchased at Velarde, New Mexico, and a beginning made for 
what has proved to be a prosperous mission among the neglected 
Spanish Americans. The report of the Home Mission board 
for the quadrennium ending in 1917 showed as connected 
with home mission work one hundred and twenty mission 
pastors, seven conference superintendents, and seven deacon¬ 
esses and teachers. In the preceding quadrennium, sixty new 
places had been occupied, and sixty-six missions had passed to 
self-support or had been taken over by annual conferences. 
After a most earnest and successful administration for a period 
of twelve years in the work of the Home Missionary society, 
C. Whitney retired as secretary and was given the relation of 
secretary emeritus. P. M. Camp, of East Ohio conference, was 
elected his successor. In his administration, extending down 
to the present time, while pressing for a forward movement, 
he appreciates the greatness of the tasks facing home missions 
and the substantial cost of money and effort necessary to the 
building up of self-sustaining churches. In the field of city 
missions, his aim is five new missions a year, with necessary 
funds assured to bring them to a condition of self-support. 
Prior to this time many local churches had been given small 
amounts of money for longer or shorter periods. Thus any 
comparison with the assistance rendered in earlier periods is 
most difficult. In rural work, the importance of which is fully 
realized, the ideal is a standard church that shall meet all of 
the needs of the community. The Home Mission department 
is one interest of the Church that did not overreach itself be¬ 
cause of the glittering prospect through the inter-church 
financial campaign. 


Church Erection 

Whatever may be our opinion as to evolution in the 
organic world, the principle certainly holds in the unfolding of 


616 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the different departments of church activity. Our sagacious 
fathers well knew that the work of home missions would be in 
vain unless the infant congregations could be housed suitably. 
Thus, in 1857, the Board of Missions approved the spending of 
some of its funds for church erection. In some cases, the 
materials for church houses were taken along by the mission¬ 
aries, or brought later from distant places. 

Church Erection Society. 

A special Church Erection society was formed by the 
General Conference in 1869, though the interests of this de¬ 
partment were entrusted to the care of the Home, Frontier, 
and Foreign Missionary society practically down to 1895, 
when W. M. Weekley was chosen to the position of secretary. 
John Hill, of Erie conference, was elected secretary in 1889, 
and C. I. B. Brane, of Maryland conference, was elected 
secretary in 1893; but both resigned because of the apparent 
futility of the effort to attain suitable success. Yet, through 
assessments on the conferences and some special gifts, some 
results were secured. It was reported in 1895 that, since 1869, 
assistance had been given to two hundred and sixty-five 
churches in securing church buildings. But in all this period 
the amounts given were meager, and many of the churches 
erected were of inferior kind. Mr. Weekley’s efforts resulted 
in the securing of largely increased funds, the making of larger 
loans, and the building of better churches. Up to 1905, four 
hundred and seventy churches had been aided, and help had 
been given in the erection of twenty-nine parsonages. Mean¬ 
while, the annual conferences had been assisting in the erection 
of churches in their own bounds through the use of their por¬ 
tion of funds, amounting to one-half of the money collected by 
them for church erection purposes. In 1905, W. M. Weekley 
was elected Bishop, and H. S. Gabel, of East Pennsylvania 
conference, was elected Church Erection secretary, serving until 
1913, when A. C. Siddall, the present secretary, was elected. 
The progress in these later years is indicated in the following: 
loans made 1905 to 1909, 86; amount loaned, $121,155.65; 
loans made 1909 to 1913, 72; amount loaned, $164,552.50; 



ORGANIZATIONS FOR HOME WORK 


617 


loans made 1913 to 1917, 94; amount loaned, $120,170.55; 
loans made 1917 to 1921, 138; amount loaned, $346,598.72. 

From 1909, all the regular collections in the conferences 
for church erection purposes have gone into the general treas¬ 
ury. A great feature of the work of the Church Erection 
society in recent years has been in the larger amount of atten¬ 
tion and aid given to planting churches in the cities. Closer 
attention to the location of churches, to building plans adopted, 
and to the return of maturing loans, have added greatly to the 
strength and usefulness of the Church Erection society. 

In 1921, a single board of control, having charge of the 
interests both of Home Missions and Church Erection, was 
provided for and elected, P. M. Camp being the secretary for 
Home Missions, and A. C. Siddall being secretary for Church 
Erection. Since the budget system was adopted, the annual 
conferences have received from the general Church treasurer a 
proportionate sum for home missions and church erection 
within their bounds, and the Church Erection society, jointly 
with them or independently, has used its resources in assisting 
congregations in securing church houses in all parts of the 
Church. 

The Church Erection Society now has a loan fund of about 
$500,000. Through the return and release of funds, loans have 
been made to churches to the extent of $1,150,000. A gift 
fund also is being provided to assist congregations in their 
initial efforts. Also, expert service is rendered in furnishing 
architectural plans, and giving counsel and help in local 
church campaigns. 





CHAPTER IV. 

COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


Otterbein College—Mt. Pleasant College—Leander Clark College—Lebanon 
Valley College—Philomath College—York College—Kansas City 
University—Indiana Central College—Shenandoah Insti¬ 
tute—Discontinued Institutions. 


/“T"^ HE greatest concern of each generation has been said to 
j be the preparation of the succeeding generation, and it 
might be added, of still other generations to follow. As 
aids to the parent in the home and to the community, 
schools and other institutions are called into existence. For 
certain purposes the Christian church must come into the edu¬ 
cational field. The United Brethren Church delayed long in 
taking up its proper part in this regard, and even then won its 
way as the result of prolonged effort and costly experience. 
The fact that Otterbein, had a thorough education, both scho¬ 
lastic and theological, has been a helpful influence in impelling 
toward higher education, and in forestalling criticism. In the 
rules of Otterbein’s church, adopted 1785, it was declared: 
“The church is to establish a German school as soon as possible, 
the vestry to spare no effort to procure the most competent 
teachers and devise such means and rules as will promote the 
best interests of the school.” After the death of Otterbein, 
the elements that made up the Church came less from the 
Reformed church and more from the less churched and the un¬ 
churched parts of the population in general brought in by the 
simple and earnest evangelism of the period. Indifference to 
advanced education, and to a certain extent opposition to 
it, came to prevail. Especially was this true with reference to 
education for the ministry. The fear of a cold and formal 
ministry was given as a reason for this opposition. After 
delaying to establish schools under the auspices of the Church 
for nearly a half-century after the denomination was fully 
launched, a forward step was taken by the General Confer- 


619 


620 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


ence that met in Circleville in 1845. The General Con¬ 
ference, by a vote of nineteen to five, adopted the following 
resolutions: 

“Resolved, That proper measures be adopted to establish 
an institution of learning. 

“Resolved, That it be recommended to the attention of the 
annual conferences, avoiding, however, irredeemable debts.” 

Two intimations included in these resolutions well might 
have been heeded more fully later, the first that but one school 
should be established in the immediate future, and the second, 
that excessive debts should be avoided. 

The Miami conference, in its session beginning March 5, 
1846, proposed that it unite with the White River and St. 
Joseph conferences in establishing an institution of learning at 
Bluffton, Indiana, at that time within the territory of Miami 
conference. The St. Joseph conference, in 1847, approved the 
undertaking and appointed trustees. A resolution of approval 
was offered at the first session of the White River conference, 
in 1847, but was overlooked and not acted on. The Indiana 
conference voted, January 1, 1847, to join in the founding of 
a seminary, but named Dublin or Washington, Indiana, as 
the location. These steps were not followed up, probably 
because the needed money was not in sight, and there was no 
tempting opportunity to buy without money. 

Otterbein University. 

The first step leading to the actual founding of an institu¬ 
tion of learning was taken by the Scioto conference, at its ses¬ 
sion beginning October 26, 1846. As already indicated, the 
Scioto conference at this time was outstandingly enterprising 
and aggressive. Presenting themselves at the session just 
named, a committee of citizens from Westerville, Ohio, offered, 
for a sum not to exceed $1,300, to turn over to the conference 
the property of the Blendon Young Men's Seminary, located at 
that place. After full consideration, the conference accepted 
the proposition, at the same time asking the cooperation of the 
neighboring conferences. Blendon Seminary was founded by 
the Methodist Episcopal church in 1839, but not long after 


COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


621 


the founding of Ohio Wesleyan University, in 1842, only 
eighteen miles from Westerville, it ceased operation and was 
offered for sale at a price that would pay the debt resting on it. 
The property consisted of a campus of eight acres, on which 
were two buildings, the one “a two-story frame, well finished, 
26 by 44 feet, with a good bell,” the other "a three-story brick, 
28 by 66 feet,” partly finished, together with "some apparatus 
and a choice collection of minerals.” The terms were, "$300 in 
ninety days, $300 in six months, $400 in one year, and the 
remaining $300 in two years, with interest.” W. Hanby, J. 
Dresbach, and L. Davis were made a committee to carry the 
contract into effect, and also were made trustees. L. Davis 
was appointed to solicit funds, and also to seek the cooperation 
of other conferences, and for the latter purpose attended the 
ensuing sessions of the Sandusky and Muskingum conferences. 
The Sandusky conference, at its session in February, 1847, 
notwithstanding the determined opposition of Bishop Russel, 
voted to cooperate. The Muskingum conference, at its session 
the same month, voted down the proposition to cooperate, also 
voting down a proposition to establish a conference seminary 
at New Rumley. But in 1848 the Muskingum conference 
voted to cooperate, as did the Miami conference in 1853. 

Westerville, as the location for an institution of learning, 
was'not very inviting at the first. Doctor Garst speaks of it 
as at the time "an insignificant village, a site as swampy as 
Chicago when that city was founded.” It was on the stage 
route from Columbus to Cleveland, twelve miles from the 
former place. In consequence of the nature of the location, 
and of the fact that it was closely surrounded by a number of 
large and well-established educational institutions, efforts were 
made at different critical periods in its history to secure a new 
location with greater advantages. Westerville always re¬ 
sponded to every occasion by making larger gifts to the uni¬ 
versity, and by the adoption of plans greatly improving local 
conditions. The building of the Cleveland, Mt. Vernon, and 
Columbus railway, and later of the interurban railroad, came 
to afford easy access. 


622 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The name Otterbein University was adopted by the trus¬ 
tees at a session at Westerville in April, 1847. At that time, a 
number of small educational institutions, State as well as de¬ 
nominational, were dignified with the name university. In 
March, 1917, Otterbein University exchanged the name 
university for the more appropriate name college. Until we get 
away from the early period, it seems almost necessary to say 
university. So much of the history was made under the name 
university that to many persons the name is almost sacred. 

To pay the purchase price for the property of Otterbein 
University, to make necessary repairs and changes, to pay 
salaries for the faculty and miscellaneous running expenses, 
Lewis Davis, soliciting and general agent and general-purpose 
man, started a subscription with his own name heading the 
list, with the amount standing opposite it, $15. Yet this 
amount was liberal for him, and in proportion to ability was 
well beyond the amounts subscribed by the laity and ministry 
in general. But this story must be made short. Soon a debt 
was accumulated. In 1854, Saum hall, a rooming place for 
men, was built. The same year, a new college building was 
begun, which, still not entirely finished, burned down in 1870. 
A copy of the Sinaitic manuscript, a donation from the Czar 
of Russia, was consumed with the library. A big effort to 
secure the removal of the university to Dayton, Ohio, was 
unsuccessful, the trustees regarding the offers of Westerville 
for the retaining of the university to be of greater advantage. 
A new college building was dedicated in 1871. Money needed 
to pay current expense and for the erection of buildings was 
secured by the costly system of sending out agents, many of 
them being the strongest men the Church had, such as J. 
Weaver, J. B. Ressler, D. R. Miller, and S. M. Hippard, L. 
Davis always coming in to perform the impossible. The selling 
of a large number of scholarships at a small price made almost 
impossible an escape with honor. In 1892, the debt was $114,- 
000. A plan, called the Knox plan from its author, John 
Knox, a layman, was launched, by which it was sought to 
raise $80,000 by large subscriptions. In 1894, through un¬ 
exampled efforts and giving, the goal was reached and celebrated 


COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


623 


with almost tumultous rejoicing. In 1901, it was found that, 
to meet the debt not provided for in the $80,000 included in the 
Knox plan, with after accumulations, $63,000 would be neces¬ 
sary to pay all debts. But in 1903 the success of this supple¬ 
mentary plan to relieve the university from debt was an¬ 
nounced, and by 1905 collections were made sufficient to pay 
back endowment money that, under the strain of dire necessity, 
had been drawn on for contingent use, the interest on which 
meanwhile having been paid regularly. In these canvasses, 
President T. J. Sanders took the leading part, along with others 
whose honor scarcely could be increased by the mention of their 
names. 

Let us now return and glance along the line of the internal 
character and work of the university. This should be more 
inspiring, as it discloses the aims and results of the denomina¬ 
tional college. In 1847, before the university went into actual 
operation, William Hanby and L. Davis were appointed to 
prepare for publication in the Religious Telescope a circular 
declaring the purposes of the projectors of the university and 
correcting various misapprehensions. In this article, the 
following language occurs: “Some of the correspondents of 
the Telescope represent us as establishing an institution of 
learning chiefly to qualify young men for the ministry, and im¬ 
pose upon it, we think unwarrantably, the name of priest 
factory. Without admitting by any means that the acquired 
abilities of our ministry are beyond or even up to what the im¬ 
portant station demands, yet upon this comment upon our mo¬ 
tives we now enter the most solemn protest, and we think it 
unkind in any of our brethren thus to represent us, because we 
have from the beginning disavowed, in public and in private, 
any intention of the kind. Our great object is the general 
diffusion of knowledge, especially in the Church to which we 
belong.” While the conscious and avowed purpose was the 
education of the youth of the Church under safe and salutary 
influence, it scarcely can be denied that qualification for service 
in the building up the kingdom of Christ lurked in the not 
distant background, thence to appear more and more fully as 
time passed. 


624 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


September 1, 1847, Otterbein University began operations 
with one full professor, William R. Griffith, principal, along 
with some helpers, and eight students. We may recall the 
words of Scripture, “Who hath despised the day of small 
things?” Doctor Garst, in his History of Otterbein University, 
reminds us of the weak beginnings of Harvard, Yale, and Wil¬ 
liams colleges. In the course of the first year, the number of 
students increased to eighty-one—“fifty-two gentlemen and 
twenty-nine ladies.” William Davis became president in 1849, 
and was succeeded in 1850 by Lewis Davis, who, with but a 
slight interval in 1857-8, continued as president down to 1871. 
The general facts of his life have been given. Later, the presi¬ 
dents serving three years or more were: H. A. Thompson, 
1872-86; H. Garst, 1886-89; T. J. Sanders, 1891-1901; George 
Scott, 1901-04; Lewis Bookwalter, 1904-1909; W. G. Clippin- 
ger, 1909—. A few of the professors not named as presidents, 
serving long and honorably were: John Haywood, Thomas 
McFadden, and John E. Guitner. Mrs. L. K. Miller and Mrs. 
Melissa Fisher were honored principals in the ladies' depart¬ 
ment. With these and others equally deserving, Otterbein 
University has had an exceptionally fine class of teachers. 

Some of the special features characterizing Otterbein 
University may be named. It may seem presumptuous and 
hazardous to say that Otterbein University was the first 
educational institution of advanced standing that admitted 
men and women as students on equal terms. Yet this is true. 
It likewise at first stood out quite alone in giving equal privi¬ 
leges to colored students. It made an honest effort to put the 
institution on a manual labor basis, but failed. Its temperance 
history, in connection with the town of Westerville, fills a 
large place in connection with the temperance history of the 
State of Ohio and of the Nation. Westerville is publication 
headquarters for the National Anti-Saloon League. The mis¬ 
sionary activities of the university, in connection with the local 
church and the Church at large, pioneered the way for later 
and larger things. Its Christian associations stood in the ad¬ 
vance line among the college Christian associations of the 
State of Ohio. 


COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


625 


The last few years have been specially characterized by 
a marked advance along various lines. 

In the period of L. Bookwalter as president, a number of 
buildings were erected, Cochran Memorial hall in 1905, central 
heating plant in 1906, Carnegie library in 1908, Lambert 
Memorial Building of Fine Arts in 1909, the last named being 
dedicated at the beginning of the next administration. The 
administration of W. G. Clippinger, from 1909 to the present 
time, has been specially one of strengthening financial founda¬ 
tions and building for the future. Highly successful financial 
campaigns have been conducted as follows: In 1914, for 
$100,000 for endowment; in 1918, for $400,000 for endowment 
and a science building; in 1922-23, a movement for raising 
$2,000,000 to commemorate the seventy-fifth anniversary of 
the founding of the college, the above amount to include 
$75,000 from the Carnegie corporation and $325,000 from the 
General Educational board, on conditions that have been, or 
will be fulfilled. 

The graduates of the college, including the class of 1924, 
number 1,676, nearly half of these in the last fifteen years. 
Among those who achieved worthy fame was Benjamin R. 
Hanby, author of Darling Nellie Gray. Due to the definite 
and earnest religious spirit of the college and the college 
church, many have gone forth from the college to give their lives 
in consecrated service in the building up of Christ's kingdom at 
home and abroad. 

Mount Pleasant College. 

Mount Pleasant College may be noticed in close connec¬ 
tion with Otterbein College, because it soon became merged 
with it. In 1847, Allegheny conference took action looking 
toward the founding of an institution of learning to be located 
at Johnstown or Mount Pleasant, in Pennsylvania. The 
movement at once took more of business character and met with 
a larger financial response than characterized the beginnings 
of Otterbein University. The school began operation in a 
well-constructed building in Mount Pleasant, the first Monday 
in November, 1850. It achieved some success and produced 


626 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


lasting good, but in a few years became heavily involved in 
debt, and in 1858 transferred its assets, debts, and some of its 
students to Otterbein University. It had no Dr. L. Davis, 
master of all work, who could live by devouring defeat. 

Leander Clark College. 

We now turn to what, three score years ago, was the ex¬ 
treme West, a land without stumps or swamps, surfaced with 
a soil unbroken by stone. Here and there was a fringe of 
timber and stream. A youthful generation of home-seekers 
were planting themselves here and there on the broad prairies 
west of the Mississippi. Iowa became a Territory in 1838, and 
a State in 1846. Among the earliest settlers were members of 
the United Brethren Church. In August, 1845, the Iowa con¬ 
ference held its first regular session. In 1853, the Des Moines 
conference was formed. At the session of the Iowa conference 
in August, 1855, it was decided to establish a college, and in 
1856 Western College was chartered, with Solomon Weaver, 
W. G. Miller, Joseph Miller, Daniel Runkle, and Jonathan 
Neidig, trustees. Solomon Weaver was the brother of Bishop 
J. Weaver. He had served for a short time as agent of Otter¬ 
bein University, and had some good qualifications for piloting 
the new enterprise, of which he justly may be called the 
founder. The college was located on the open prairie, in Linn 
county, Iowa, eight miles south of Cedar Rapids. The induce¬ 
ment for this special location was the gift of money and land 
to above the amount of $6,000. It was expected that friends 
of the college would be attracted to the country round about, 
and to the town laid out by the authorities of the college, and 
that a railroad would be built between Cedar Rapids and Iowa 
City; but the railroad never came, and the country about 
became settled by foreigners. 

The college began operation January 1, 1857, in a well- 
constructed brick building, three teachers being employed, 
besides Solomon Weaver, the president, and thirty-eight 
students being registered. Money, while inadequate, was 
subscribed freely for the support of the school. As time passed, 
a splendid class of students entered the college and went out to 


COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


627 


fill large and responsible places in the Church and in all stations 
in life. The early teachers were unusual in their character 
and qualifications. One was from Oberlin, another from Dart¬ 
mouth, and another from Amherst. For five years, a strenuous 
effort was made to operate the school on the manual labor plan, 
but this had to be given up. When the Civil War came, the 
spirit of patriotism ran high, and, on the basis of government 
reports, it is said that a greater proportion of the young men 
in the college enlisted in the army than enlisted in any other 
college in the country. Thus, the college was greatly crippled 
through the period of the war. The cooperating conferences 
have been the different conferences in Iowa, and Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Northern Illinois conferences, and at times con¬ 
ferences in Michigan and Nebraska. President Weaver 
resigned in 1864. His successors were as follows: William 
Davis, 1864-65; M. W. Bartlett (principal) 1865-67; Homer R. 
Page (principal) fall term, 1867; E. C. Ebersole (principal) 
1867-68; E. B. Kephart, 1868-81; W. M. Beardshear, 1881-89; 
J. S. Mills, 1889-92; A. M. Beal, 1892-93; A. P. Funkhouser, 
1893-94; L. Bookwalter, 1884-1904; C. J. Kephart, 1905-1908; 
F. E. Brooke, 1908-13; M. R. Drury, 1913-16. 

Through the long history of the college, there was an 
atmosphere of warm religious life, high moral purpose, and 
stimulating fellow feeling. The presidents serving longer 
terms, Weaver, Kephart, Beardshear, and Bookwalter, along 
with others, by their personal character and touch, made a 
deep and lasting impression on the successive student genera¬ 
tions, at times large numbers crowding the college halls. 
Among the teachers, Henry Ward, the author of a faithful 
history of the college, and still adding useful years to his long 
term of service, is deserving of special mention. 

Looking to the outward, or financial side, a somewhat 
different course of things is presented. Funds for operating 
and building expense being inadequate, money was borrowed 
at a high rate of interest, and various devices were resorted to 
in order to escape or stave off the unpleasant day of reckoning. 
Some of the history was little less than tragic, and some, it 
must be confessed, was ultra tragic. Due to things that could 


628 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


not have been foreseen, and to things that the efforts and sacri¬ 
fices of friends and supporters could not overcome, it was 
found necessary to relocate. Toledo, Iowa, on a proffer of 
$20,000, was made the new location of the college, where opera¬ 
tions were begun in 1881. A substantial, commodious, and 
well-adapted administration building was occupied in 1883. A 
few years later, Mrs. Mary Beatty gave $10,000jtoward the 
erection of a boarding hall for lady students, to which hall her 
name was given. Two buildings apart from the campus were 
added later to the equipment of the college. A debt of $25,000, 
existing before the relocation of the college, was not wholly 
met by a subscription taken at that time. With former debt, 
cost of buildings, and various arrearages, the debts of the col¬ 
lege soon amounted to $60,000, with assets to meet the same of 
about $20,000. A campaign was launched to raise $200,000 
to meet back claims and for enlargement and endowment, 
with already a substantial beginning toward that amount. 
The subscriptions were valid only on the securement of the 
$200,000 on or before July 1, 1890. The campaign was not 
successful. To complete the crisis, on the morning of Decem¬ 
ber 26, 1889, the college building burned, including, in addition 
to the usual equipment, the large library and a special cabinet 
recently donated, valued at not less than $50,000. The in¬ 
surance amounted to but $22,000. The generosity of the 
people of Toledo, and the determination of the authorities and 
patrons of the college, seemed to rise to the requirements of the 
occasion and the work of rebuilding began. Sure debts and 
uncertain assets began to tell their story. The tide scarcely 
could have been lower than it was in 1894, when Lewis Book- 
waiter was called to the presidency. A campaign to raise 
$35,000 to meet most pressing demands already was well 
under way. When completed, it gave temporary relief. But 
it was necessary to strengthen the college internally, and at the 
same time to wipe out the oppressive debt. A plan was inau¬ 
gurated to operate the school without a further increase of 
debt, and to secure subscriptions to the amount of $50,000 to 
pay all lingering debts. On December 31, 1902, the success of 
the plan was announced “amid great enthusiasm and rejoicing.” 


COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


629 


In these years, John Dodds, a layman of Dayton, Ohio, stood 
by with gifts of between $18,000 and $19,000, and others 
inside and outside of the Church gave generous help. 

June 13, 1903, Leander Clark, a generous and esteemed 
citizen of Toledo, made a written proposition to donate $50,000 
for endowment, provided $100,000 should be secured from 
other sources for this purpose. As the result of heroic effort 
and gifts of friends from near and far, $50,000 of this amount 
was secured. Andrew Carnegie supplied the third $50,000 
November 30, Thanksgiving Day, 1905, President C. J. Kep- 
hart, amid rejoicing, made announcement of this consumma¬ 
tion. In honor of Leander Clark, whose gift was the basis of 
this success, the name of the college was changed legally in 
1906 to Leander Clark College. 

Leander Clark was born in Huron county, Ohio, July 17, 
1823. For a short time, he was a student in Oberlin College. 
In 1852, he settled in Tama county, Iowa. In the Civil War, 
he enlisted as a private soldier, became captain, major, and 
lieutenant-colonel in succession, serving throughout the war. 
His wealth was the result of intelligent business activity, 
largely through the increase of the value of lands purchased at 
an early day, and later through the banking business. Ripe 
in years and esteemed by all, he died December 22, 1910. 

President F. E. Brooke, by initiating another campaign, 
in collecting past subscriptions and obtaining new subscrip¬ 
tions to meet shrinkage in listed assets, was able to announce 
February 1, 1910, all obligations against the college paid, at 
which time there was a public burning of the last notes and 
mortgages against the college—except one note that seemed too 
sacred to burn, given at the lowest ebb in the financial condi¬ 
tion of the college, and signed by the closest circle of the friends 
of the college. 

As the history of Leander Clark College was to such a 
great extent a history of financing, some of the larger contribu¬ 
tors may be named. A partial list of names not already 
given is the following: A. H. Dolph, $10,000; D. McIntyre, 
$10,000; Keister brothers, $5,000; W. F. Johnson, $8,000; 
S. Lichtenwalter, $8,000; M. S. Drury, $30,000; John Sham- 


630 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


baugh and Adam Shambaugh, $19,000. Others have given 
large sums, and many that have given small sums have given 
more in proportion to their means than others whose gifts 
have run into thousands. We are not to forget the gift of 
George Bright, in recognition of which the conservatory of 
music was named in honor of his father, John C. Bright, or 
the valuable cabinet presented by Mrs. Charles Mason. 

In making a rapid survey of the history of Leander Clark 
College, perhaps the impression that should remain strongest 
with us is that of the great religious purpose of the founders and 
of the decisions for Christ and a life of service reached in college 
years. It may seem somewhat strange that, after such heroic 
struggles and large achievements, Leander Clark College could 
not successfully proceed along the lines previously pursued. 
Yet, with the smallness of the Church membership, and the 
weak and scattered local churches supporting it, it was no 
longer possible to command the financial support necessary 
to meet the advancing demands of accredited colleges. The 
very successes proved to be too costly. The supporting 
conferences, and even the student body, were under the de¬ 
pressing influence. It is not strange, therefore, that, when a 
proposition was made to merge Leander Clark College with 
Coe College, at Cedar Rapids, this was considered favorably. 
The plan provided that Leander Clark College should be con¬ 
tinued, having in an especial way charge of a school of religious 
education, that being the core for which the Christian college 
stands. In 1917, the Iowa conference, by an almost unanimous 
vote, gave its approval to the union of the two colleges. Fur¬ 
ther necessary steps were taken. The Board of Education of 
the Church approved the conditions and plans adopted, pro¬ 
vided the Church retained the right to withdraw from the 
union if it should see fit. The authorities regarded this a 
feature contradictory to the union itself, and the union was 
consummated without this feature being included, it being the 
only feature that the Board of Education did not endorse. 
The Board of Education introduced action in the courts to set 
aside the agreement to unite the two colleges, and the case is 
yet in the courts. 


COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


631 


Lebanon Valley College. 

Lebanon Valley College was founded in 1866 by the action 
of East Pennsylvania conference. The building and grounds 
of Annville Academy, at Annville, Pennsylvania, a privately 
owned and conducted institution founded in 1834, were ten¬ 
dered as a gift to the conference. The building and grounds 
were valued at $5,000. The proposition was accepted, and a 
board of trustees was appointed, consisting of D. S. Early, 
G. W. M. Rigor, John B. Stehman, Abraham Sherk, J. B. 
Daugherty, L. W. Craumer, David Hoffman, John H. Kinports, 
Rudolph Herr, H. H. Kreider, and Samuel Walmer. For the 
first five years, the school was operated, under lease, by Thomas 
R. Vickroy and G. W. M. Rigor, for the conference and the 
Church. In 1873, Virginia and Pennsylvania conferences came 
into cooperation with the school. They had been cooperating 
nominally with Otterbein University. Pennsylvania confer¬ 
ence had demanded as a condition for cooperation that the 
Lebanon Valley school should become a school for men and 
that women should be sent to Cottage Hill Seminary at York. 
Parkersburg conference came into cooperation early, and 
Allegheny conference stood as a cooperating conference from 
1882 to 1891. 

It will be noticed that the college was started somewhat 
late in the history of the Church, one hundred years after the 
memorable meeting of Otterbein and Boehm, and about 
twenty years after the founding of Otterbein University, and 
also that the Eastern was much the older section of the Church. 
A glance backward will show that this older part of the Church 
was very conservative regarding institutions of learning. 

In 1847, J. B. Ressler and I. Potter, of Allegheny confer¬ 
ence, were present at the session of the Pennsylvania conference, 
seeking the cooperation of that conference with the contem¬ 
plated Mt. Pleasant College. The following was the reply of 
the conference: “Resolved, That this conference is not only 
opposed to erecting an institution of learning in Allegheny 
conference, but also to the Blendon Seminary (Otterbein 
University). Resolved, That this conference is opposed to 
the institution of learning contemplated by the Virginia con- 


632 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


ference.” Bishop Hanby, who was present, afterward wrote: 
“The members did not wish to be understood as opposing 
education, but they regarded the spiritual death and formality 
of many of the churches extant as the legitimate result of 
collegiate education in the ministry.” The resolutions quoted 
reflect the dominant influence of Bishop Russel in his own 
conference. Already in both the Pennsylvania and East 
Pennsylvania conferences there were forward-looking men 
“that had understanding of the times to knowjjwhat Israel 
ought to do.” Yet, still in this connection, it may be noted 
that, right under the shadow of the new institution of learning, 
direct antagonism presented itself. In the spring of 1868, 
George W. Hoffman, the college pastor, a man of unusual 
zeal and preaching ability, aligned himself with a party in 
the church and others in the town who were opposed to col¬ 
leges, branding them as “preacher factories.” The pastor 
invited Bishop J. Russel, then ex-Bishop to preach from his 
pulpit. Bishop Russel spoke for an hour with great vehemence 
against colleges, using for his text the words, “Knowledge 
puffeth up.” The result was a falling off of one-fourth of the 
attendance at the college, and a deep division among the 
people. George W. Hoffman, John Stamm, another prominent 
preacher, and some other preachers of like spirit, became the 
leaders of a number of congregations of come-outers, under the 
name of United Christians, of which there are yet some sur¬ 
vivals. With these antecedent and hindering features aside 
let us notice the real history of the college. 

The president of the college the first five years, from 1866 
to 1871, was Thomas R. Vickroy, a graduate of Dickinson 
College, a thorough school man, the author of a number of 
text-books. He became principal of the city high school in 
St. Louis, where he died in 1904. Benjamin Bierman was one 
of the first professors. At the beginning of the first year, 
there were forty-nine students, the number at the end of the 
year being increased to one hundred and fifty-three. The 
college received a liberal charter in 1867. In 1868, a commo¬ 
dious three-story brick administration building was completed, 
at a cost of $3,100. 


COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


633 


The second president was Lucian H. Hammond, who held 
the position from 1871 to 1876, when failing health compelled 
him to resign. He died the following year. He was a graduate 
of Ohio Wesleyan University. Before his election to the 
presidency, he had taught at Otterbein University, at Cottage 
Hill Seminary, and four years at Lebanon Valley College. 
He was a thorough scholar, a born teacher, and a strict disci¬ 
plinarian. In his term, the number of students was increasing, 
and the first two classes graduated from the college. 

David D. DeLong, a graduate of Otterbein University 
and the Allegheny Theological Seminary, was the third presi¬ 
dent. Prior to his election, he had been engaged as pastor and 
in teaching. He seemed to bring with him the Allegheny 
conference as a cooperating conference. In his term, a number 
of internal changes were made in the school. In 1883, a 
building for art, music, science, and library purposes was 
erected. In his term, one hundred and seven students were 
graduated. In 1887, he resigned and entered the Congrega¬ 
tional church. 

After a short interval, E. S. Lorenz, an alumnus of Otter¬ 
bein University, became president in October, 1887. With his 
excellent executive abilities, he at once began to formulate 
and put into effect larger plans for the internal work and the 
permanent support of the college, to all of which there was an 
encouraging response from the patrons of the college. Failing 
health compelled his retirement in 1889. At this time, there 
was much agitation for the removal of the college to Harris¬ 
burg. Large and tempting offers were made by those desiring 
the change. Cyrus J. Kephart, well known as a present Bishop 
in the Church, who had much experience as a pastor and in 
college work, served as president for a single year, declining a 
reelection. 

In 1890, E. Benjamin Bierman was chosen, as it almost 
seemed, to lead a forlorn hope for the college. For five years, 
the agitation for removal had gone on, with no result but to 
divide friends and create uncertainty. The new president 
had been a professor in Lebanon Valley College from its 
founding in 1866 to 1881, then taught in a seminary in Phila- 


634 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


delphia, and now was called back to the college to serve as 
president for seven years, then to serve as treasurer three 
years, to the time of his death, August 27, 1909. He was 
active and honored in many relations. A long-time friend of 
the college says: u President Bierman’s administration was the 
beginning of a greater Lebanon Valley College.” 

In 1897, Herwin U. Roop, an alumnus of Lebanon Valley 
College, a scholar and educator of recognized ability, became 
president, serving until January, 1906. In his term, student 
attendance was increased largely, and notable material ex¬ 
pansion took place. The fine group of seven buildings belong 
almost entirely to this period—the new administration building 
erected to take the place of the one destroyed by fire in 1904, 
the boys’ and girls’ dormitories, the music hall, the gift of 
B. H. Engle, the library building, the gift of Andrew Carnegie 
the central heating plant, together with the old academy 
building. Mr. Carnegie gave $50,000 toward the administra¬ 
tion building. The success in securing some of the larger 
donations was due to a considerable extent to the influence 
of Bishop E. B. Kephart. 

A. P. Funkhouser, an alumnus of Otterbein University, a 
minister of Virginia conference, alike versatile and energetic, 
served as president from 1906 to 1908. His term of a year 
and three months was much taken up in a strenuous effort to 
pay debts. 

Lawrence Keister, an alumnus of Otterbein University 
and Western College, was the next president, serving from 
1907 to 1912. In his term, new equipment was obtained for 
different departments. A debt-paying campaign for $100,000 
was carried out successfully. The college received property 
valued at $45,000 from the estate of D. Eberly. 

In 1912, George D. Gossard, an alumnus of Otterbein 
University and Bonebrake Theological Seminary, was elected 
president, in which capacity he continues to serve. The 
present prosperous condition of the college is due largely to his 
administrative ability and adaptation to the various duties 
that fall to a college president, but due also to the labor and 
devotion of many that in preceding years toiled and sacrificed 


COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


635 


for the building up of the college. The earnest religious life 
of the college has been a characteristic from the beginning. 
The literary societies and athletic features, in addition to 
their direct benefits, have tended to foster the college spirit. 
The ministry in cooperating conferences, as well as beyond, 
has been supplied largely by the graduates of the college. 
The graduates, including the class of 1924, now number 1,116. 
A financial campaign in 1918 resulted in securing $389,000 for 
the purposes of the College. Stimulated by a conditional gift 
of $175,000 for endowment from the General Educational 
Board of New York, the college has planned a campaign to 
raise $700,000 in the summer of 1924. 

Philomath College. 

Philomath College began operation as a seminary at 
Philomath, Oregon, in September, 1867, T. J. Conner being 
named president and general agent. In 1871, it was listed as 
a college, J. A. Biddle being named as president. In 1873, 
R. E. Williams became president, and Henry Sheak became a 
member of the teaching force. More advanced work was 
entered on at this time. Hitherto, the work mainly had been 
of a public school character. The college is located ninety 
miles south of Portland, in the Willamette valley. Snow¬ 
capped mountains are in sight throughout the year, and the 
scenery and the atmosphere are most inspiring and invigorating. 
The college and the town, bearing the same name, grew up 
together. When the college was founded, the State of Oregon 
was but nine years old, and contained only about 75,000 in¬ 
habitants. About Philomath, conditions were as undeveloped 
and primitive as it is possible to imagine. Yet, here was the 
raw material for the making of strong and disciplined men 
and women. The early starting of the school, with its definite 
and decided influence toward upright character, enabled it to 
prepare and send out a large number of influential leaders both 
in secular and religious life. Twelve hundred of its six thousand 
students have become teachers. One hundred and fifty have 
become ministers. Fifteen have gone out as missionaries. 
Among its graduates have been teachers, preachers, and 


636 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


authors of distinction. Louis Alberts Banks, a distinguished 
preacher and author, is put down as a “near graduate.” The 
college has been a center for evangelism and effective temper¬ 
ance work. 

Among the presidents of the college have been, W. S. 
Walker, W. S. Gilbert, P. 0. Bonebrake, I. E. Caldwell, D. A. 
Mobley, B. E. Emerick, M. R. Drury, and L. L. Eberly. 
H. Dixon Boughter, the president at this time, entered upon 
his duties in 1922. In his term, a president's residence and a 
conservatory of music have been secured, the purchase of the 
latter being made possible by a gift of $5,000 by Mrs. F. B. 
Church. The college has an endowment of about $60,000. 
The conferences cooperating are the Oregon, Columbia River, 
Montana, and California conferences. 

York College. 

York College, located at York, in the central part of 
eastern Nebraska, is one of the younger colleges of the United 
Brethren Church. Its forerunner was Gibbon Collegiate 
Institute, at Gibbon, Nebraska. This institution was bought 
from the Baptists in 1886. It was operated with some success 
for a few years with C. M. Brooke and then J. F. Leffler as 
principal. In 1890, the institution was located at York, and 
given the name York College, the new location affording the 
advantage of a larger town and excellent surroundings. To 
secure the college, the city of York voted eighty acres of land 
and twenty thousand dollars. The college has the cooperation 
of the Nebraska and Colorado conferences. The presidents of 
the college have been: J. George, 1890 to 1894; W. S. Reese, 
1894 to 1897; W. E. Schell, 1897 to 1913; M. O. McLaughlin, 
1913 to 1919; H. U. Roop, December, 1919 to 1921; W. O. 
Jones, 1922 to 1924; E. W. Emery, the present incumbent. 
W. E. Schell was president long enough to put his own distinct 
stamp on the college, and to conduct it to enlarged success. 
M. O. McLaughlin's prominence as an educator and as a 
representative of higher ideals in civil government led to his 
being elected as a member of the national Congress. W. S. 
Reese, earlier and later, filled honored positions in other 


COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


637 


educational institutions of the Church. Charles Bisset and 
C. E. Ashcraft have filled out extended terms as members of 
the faculty; the latter, as dean of the faculty, having special 
responsibilities devolving on him after the resignation of W. 0. 
Jones, in 1924. York College has had and still has its great 
difficulties. Nebraska has many educational institutions of 
different grades, and the membership in the cooperating 
conferences is not large. And, yet, by maintaining a high 
standard of work, by diversifying its courses, and by fidelity 
to high moral ideals, it has enjoyed a liberal patronage. Its 
net student attendance for 1923-1924 was 490. Twelve of the 
students of York College have gone as missionaries, many 
have entered the ministry, and more than a thousand have 
become teachers. The college has two substantial and com¬ 
modious buildings, besides a gymnasium and central heating 
plant. An earnest and loyal spirit pervades the college, and 
it is deserving of large-hearted and substantial support. 

Kansas City University. 

Kansas City University, located in Kansas City, Kansas, 
is now equally owned and controlled by the United Brethren 
and the Methodist Protestant churches. The United Brethren 
side of the partnership has a long and devious history. In 
1859, it was planned to start a college at Fremont, in Brecken- 
ridge county, Kansas. In 1864, Solomon Weaver, the chief 
promoter in the establishment of Western College, in Iowa, 
moved to Kansas, and, in 1865, became the founder of Lane 
University, at Lecompton, Kansas, named in honor of General 
Jim Lane, a leader of the Free-Soil party in the troublous days 
of Kansas. After the State capital was removed from Lecomp¬ 
ton, the State grounds there, with the massive foundation for 
the capitol building, were donated to the so-called university. 
A substantial building for the school was erected on a part of 
this foundation. Solomon Weaver served as president two 
years. He continued as a minister of Kansas conference until 
the time of his death, December 6, 1874. Some of the later 
presidents were: N. B. Bartlett, who served eleven years; 
S. B. Ervin and J. A. Weller, who each served four years; 


638 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


and C. M. Brooke, who served from 1891 to 1901. The loca¬ 
tion at Lecompton being regarded as unsuitable, and conditions 
of financial betterment being presented at Holton, Kansas, 
the college was located at that place in 1903, and began opera¬ 
tion there in 1904, under the name Campbell College. The 
school, under the old name, had been the inspiring mother of a 
large number of student generations. In its list of teachers 
were men and women of distinguished ability and devotion. 
At Holton, the school attained a good degree of prosperity, 
and excellent results were achieved. T. D. Crites became 
president in 1905, and served until 1913. 

Under the pressure of financial burdens, and attracted 
by what seemed to be larger opportunities, the authorities of 
Campbell College deemed it best to unite with the Methodist 
Protestant church in maintaining an institution of learning 
at Kansas City, Kansas. On this basis, the institution, under 
the name of Kansas City University, has continued operation 
from 1913 to the present time. In this union it was the 
proper continuation, or legatee, of Avalon College, Gould 
College, Central College, Lane University and Campbell 
College. 

On the basis of a large bequest by S. F. Mather, a descend¬ 
ant of Cotton Mather, Kansas City University was established 
in 1896 as an institution of learning under the auspices of the 
Methodist Protestant Church. Large contributions to the 
resources of the institution were made by H. J. Heinz, of 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. There was, however, need of larger 
funds for development, and of a larger supporting constituency. 
As the organic union of the United Brethren and Methodist 
Protestant churches was in prospect at this time, a union of 
the two educational institutions seemed to be feasible and 
desirable. 

Since the consolidation, some of the chancellors or deans 
of the university have been Methodist Protestants and some 
have been United Brethren, F. W. May holding the position 
now. While progress has been made in the years since con¬ 
solidation, it is very necessary to enlist the more hearty and 


COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


639 


liberal support of the entire constituency in order to secure the 
proper growth and benefits of the University. 

Indiana Central College. 

A number of United Brethren schools of various grades, 
in Indiana had passed out of existence. In order to meet a 
felt want, the White River conference, in 1902, passed resolu¬ 
tions proposing the location of a college at Indianapolis, pro¬ 
vided another conference in the State would cooperate. The 
same year, the St. Joseph conference, and, in the next year, 
the Indiana conference joined in the proposed enterprise. 
The trustees, through joining with W. E. Elder in laying out 
and selling off a plat of ground adjacent to Indianapolis, 
secured an eligible campus, besides realizing a substantial 
profit in the transaction. The school began operations in 
1905, with J. T. Roberts as president. Later, L. D. Bone- 
brake, who had been superintendent of schools in Ohio, served 
a number of years as president. In 1915, I. J. Good, one of 
the first graduates of the school, became president, in which 
position he continues to serve. The name university, with 
which the institution started, was changed to college in 1921. 
The steps by which the institution came to be recognized by 
the Board of Education of the Church, and placed on the list of 
accredited colleges by the Indiana Board of Education, were 
somewhat slow and difficult. 

The college, with the support of the United Brethren 
conferences in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, with a church 
membership of above 90,000, has a large field from which to 
draw support and to which to minister. Indianapolis itself is 
an ideal center for such an institution. The enthusiasm and 
loyal spirit of the student body are most favorable for personal 
development, and promise well in the results to accrue to the 
Church and the kingdom of Christ. The small grounds with 
which the college authorities sought at first to satisfy them¬ 
selves have been enlarged into an ample campus. Instead of 
one building, as at the beginning, a group of buildings has 
sprung up, having large facilities for the accommodation of 
students and for the various purposes of the college. In 


640 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


addition, the college has the advantage of favorable surround¬ 
ings created by the presence of the college and helpful to its 
proper life and purposes. 

Shenandoah Collegiate Institute. 

The above named institution of the Southland is located 
at Dayton, in the Shenandoah valley, Virginia. Natural 
attractions that may be named are the beautiful scenery, the 
famous Luray caverns, and the Natural Bridge within easy 
reach. Also, the national capital is not far away. All of this 
leads to the bringing of students from many distant places. 
The simplicity of life and the encouragements of economy 
make an open road to many that otherwise might be debarred 
from an education. The real reason, however, for this school 
was a purpose nearer home, the need of the neighboring people 
for a “school for their children.” The school was started as 
a private enterprise in 1876, with J. N. Fries and A. P. Funk- 
houser in charge. Afterward, various persons were named as 
proprietors and principals. In 1879, the Virginia conference 
appointed a committee to visit the school, and in 1884 voted 
to purchase it. From the first, it was a school in the interest 
of the Church. J. N. Fries was made principal, and con¬ 
tinued in this relation until 1887. G. P. Hott then held the 
position for nine years, followed by E. U. Hoenshel for thirteen 
years. J. H. Ruebush, as director of the School of Music, and 
much of the time as director of everything else, for many years 
has been the man on the throne or behind the throne, inspiring 
or impelling the different departments and activities of the 
school. Since 1922, D. T. Gregory has been the president. 
The institute has six departments, and thus meets a wide 
variety of demands. It gives two years of college work. 
Buildings for the accommodation of students and for the 
purposes of the school are being provided, and a substantial 
beginning toward endowment has been made. The present 
administration building was erected in 1910 at a cost of $20,000. 
A wholesome fear of debt has prevented rash ventures. The 
Virginia conference, in addition to maintaining this school, 
elects trustees for Lebanon Valley College. From this in- 


COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


641 


stitution many persons have gone forth to render eminent 
and useful service. 

Educational Institutions Discontinued. 

It might seem that the best tribute to these discontinued 
educational institutions would be silence. The glowing an¬ 
ticipations, heroic efforts, and sacrificial giving in connection 
with their founding, entitle them to a moment's notice. What 
Daniel Webster said in his famous plea in the Dartmouth 
College case might have been applied to any one and all of 
these institutions in their day: “It is a small college, it is true, 
but there are those that love it." In some of these cases, 
benefits were salvaged, and from all of them useful lessons may 
be drawn. It will be seen that a kind of educational furore 
followed a long period of opposition and unconcern. Notice 
will not be taken here of those institutions that already have 
been noticed as formally merged with other educational in¬ 
stitutions. The following is a list of discontinued educational 
institutions, with the date of founding: Hartsville College, 
in Indiana, academy 1850, college 1852; Evergreen Seminary, 
Seven Mile, Ohio, 1851; Blandinsville Seminary, in Illinois, 
1855; Sublimity College, in Oregon, 1858; Michigan Collegiate 
Institute, 1859; Westfield College, in Illinois, academy 1861, 
college 1865; Bourbon Seminary, in Indiana, 1861; Cottage 
Hill Female Seminary, York, Pennsylvania, 1868; Avalon 
College, in Missouri, academy 1869, college 1881; Smithville 
Academy, in Ohio, 1870; Ontario Academy, Freeport, Canada, 
1871; Elroy Institute, in Wisconsin, 1874; Edwards Academy, 
in Tennessee, 1877; San Joaquin Valley College, Woodbridge, 
California, 1878; Fostoria Academy, in Ohio, 1879; Washing¬ 
ton Seminary, Huntsville, Washington, 1880; Gould College, 
Harlan, Kansas, 1881; Ontario College, Port Elgin, 1881; 
West Virginia Academy, 1882; Dover Academy, in Illinois, 
1882; Erie Conference Seminary, Sugar Grove, Pennsylvania, 
1884; North Manchester College, in Indiana, 1890; Central 
College, in Kansas, 1891. 

Hartsville College had a long and useful career and 
finally passed over to the radical section in the separation that 


642 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


took place in 1889. The college building afterward burned. 
J. W. Pruner had an important part in the work of the college. 
Bourbon Seminary, sometimes given as a discontinued in¬ 
stitution, though fully organized and provided with a building, 
probably never reached the operating stage, as the annual 
conference back of it decided to join in supporting Roanoke 
Seminary. Evergreen Seminary never went into operation as 
a conference enterprise. While considerable effort and money 
were bestowed on it, the conference in 1853 agreed to co¬ 
operate with Otterbein University on condition that the first 
money raised in the conference territory by the agents of the 
University should go to meet liabilities against the conference 
seminary. Cottage Hill Seminary, though presided over by 
D. Eberly and listed as a church institution was privately 
owned. 

Of the institutions named, the one that figured most in 
the life and work of the Church was Westfield College. Teachers 
and churchmen of ability held the position as president, or 
had a place on its teaching staff. S. B. Allen filled the office 
of president from 1869 to 1883, putting his strong impress 
on the college and in a wider way on the Church. He was 
born January 17, 1830. He was a student in Mt. Pleasant 
College, graduated at Otterbein University in 1859, studied 
two years in the theological seminary at Oberlin, became 
principal of Michigan Collegiate Institute, taught five years 
at Otterbein University; but the part of his career that told 
most was his fourteen years as president at Westfield. He 
was a man of large heart and great intellectual force. His 
moral texture and courage made him an outstanding reformer. 
He died March 22, 1886. Others that stood at the head of 
the college for a longer or shorter time were, L. Bookwalter, 
I. L. Kephart, W. H. Klinefelter, B. L. Seneff and B. F. Daugh¬ 
erty. W. C. Smith, J. F. Moore, and S. Mills, ministers of 
the Lower Wabash conference, did everything that humanly 
could be done to perpetuate and strengthen Westfield College. 
The building was struck by lightning and burned, with li¬ 
braries and valuable equipment. 


COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES 


643 


Some of the institutions named did not represent very 
much effort or investment, and their disappearance was felt 
but little, yet, in most cases there was left a trail of debt and 
distress. Still, many of the leading workers in the Church 
received their incentive and much of their preparation in one 
or another of these short-lived institutions. Bishop Bell and 
President Howard are two of a number of examples that might 
be given. Yet how much better it would have been if the 
efforts and resources of the Church had been concentrated on 
fewer institutions and these had been well sustained. 

















CHAPTER V. 

BONEBRAKE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


The Founding—The New Name—The New Location—Results Achieved— 
The Financial Support. 

r HE Theological Seminary, long delayed in its coming, 
was opened for work, October 11, 1871. It is hardly 
strange that L. Davis, the senior professor, should ex¬ 
claim at the beginning of the opening exercises: “The 
time has come for the opening of the Seminary. Yes, it has 
come, but not a moment too soon. Many of our members have 
long prayed to see this day, and, lo, it is here! In fact the 
Church has long felt the need of an institution of this kind.” 
We have noticed sufficiently the opposition to institutions for 
the training of the ministry that long lingered in the Church. 
Bishop Russel, the foremost opposer of such institutions, lived 
to modify greatly his position. He left $5,000 to the Virginia 
conference and $10,000 to the Pennsylvania and East Pennsyl¬ 
vania conferences for the establishing of what might be called 
itinerating theological chairs, for the training of preachers 
under a preacher serving a charge. The plan was found to 
be impracticable, and the money was put to other uses. At 
the General Conference of 1869, at which the establishment 
of the Seminary was authorized, the first recommendation was 
that the various institutions of learning should increase “the 
facilities for biblical instruction, especially for young men pre¬ 
paring for the ministry.” The preceding General Conference 
had recommended that the institutions of learning establish 
“biblical classes.” But in 1869 the General Conference en¬ 
trusted to the newly-formed Board of Education the task of 
establishing a full-fledged theological seminary. The board 
was quite politic in adopting as the name of the new institution, 
Union Biblical Seminary. It was expected that a considerable 
fund should be gathered before the Seminary should be opened. 
But time was fast passing and the money did not come strearn- 


645 


646 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


ing in, so the Seminary was opened, without a building and 
without funds, in five small rooms in the Summit Street church. 
L. Davis, senior professor, and G. A. Funkhouser, a recent 
graduate of Allegheny Theological Seminary, were the regular 
teachers. J. P. Landis, a recent graduate of Lane Theological 
Seminary, being at the time the pastor of the Summit Street 
congregation, taught classes in the Seminary, receiving in 
exchange therefor from the other teachers assistance in his 
work as pastor. Eleven students were enrolled the first year. 

A good three-story brick building, ample for the time, was 
erected in 1878, at a cost of about $10,000, and was occupied 
the following year. A valuable tract of five acres of land had 
been donated by J. Kemp for the purposes of the Seminary. 
Money for operating expenses came in slowly, and soon there 
was a growing and menacing debt. Again and again there 
were campaigns, successfully carried on, for the payment of 
embarrassing debts. 

In consequence of a donation by J. M. Bonebrake to the 
endowment of the Seminary, of $50,000, the name of the 
Seminary was changed, in 1909, to Bonebrake Theological 
Seminary, the name, by agreement, being in honor of the six 
brothers of his father, who were ministers in the United Breth¬ 
ren church. In consequence of the smallness of the tract of 
land available for a Seminary campus, and the fact that 
neighboring conditions made the original site undesirable, an 
eligible site of ample dimensions was purchased in Dayton 
View, on which have been erected three large modern buildings 
as the first units of a larger home for the Seminary. On the 
ground already was a large frame dwelling suitable as a dormi¬ 
tory for ladies. The campus includes thirty-six acres. The 
new buildings were occupied first in the fall of 1923. 

The professors in the Seminary, with their chairs and 
terms of service have been as follows: L. Davis, Systematic 
Theology, 1871-1885; Senior Professor, 1871-1884; Emeritus, 
1885; deceased March 23,1890. George A. Funkhouser, Greek 
Exegesis, 1871-1912; Senior Professor, 1884-1907; Emeritus, 
1912. J. P. Landis, Hebrew Exegesis, 1871-1874; Hebrew 
Exegesis, 1880-1886; Systematic Theology, 1886-1891; Hebrew 


BONEBRAKE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 647 


Exegesis and Old Testament Theology, 1891—; Dean, 1907- 
1910; President, 1910-1921. R. Wahl, Hebrew Exegesis, 1874. 
George Keister, Hebrew Exegesis and Biblical History, 1874, to 
his death, August 21, 1880. A. W. Drury, Church History, 
1880-1892; Systematic Theology, 1892—. J. W. Etter, System¬ 
atic Theology, 1891; deceased March 28, 1895. S. D. Faust, 
Church History, 1893—. W. G. Clippinger, Practical Theol¬ 
ogy, 1905-1909. J. G. Huber, Homiletics, 1909-1913. J. B. 
Showers, Greek Exegesis, 1910—. W. A. Weber, Religious 
Pedagogy (later, Religious Education), 1911—. M. A. Hon- 
line, Religious Education (later, Sunday-school Science), 1913- 
1920. A. T. Howard, President, 1921—; Missions, 1921—. 
G. D. Batdorf, Lecturer in Homiletics, 1922-1924. Names of 
assistant instructors and teachers of elocution are omitted. 

For the best results in educational preparation, residence 
work under regular school conditions is almost necessary. 
Yet, the Seminary seeks to give assistance to those already 
engaged in ministerial work that would enlarge and strengthen 
their efficiency while continuing in their ministerial work. 
With this end in view, the Seminary has provided Seminary 
extension courses, which have been adopted and followed out, 
with excellent results, in many of the conferences. 

Including the class of 1924, the graduates from the Semin¬ 
ary number 621. Many others have taken a partial course. 
The Church has called a large number of those receiving 
their training in the Seminary to positions of great responsi¬ 
bility and large opportunities of service, and the demand for 
qualified pastors and trained leaders is many times beyond 
the number that the Seminary can supply. The demands 
and the opportunities never were greater than now. With 
better accommodations and better facilities in the new home 
for the Seminary, an increasing number of students should 
find their way to the Seminary, and the support and means 
for enlarged efficiency and usefulness should be generously 
afforded by the Church. Much depends on the success of the 
campaign now under way for securing $1,000,000 for the 
purposes of the Seminary. 


648 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The endowment of the chair of missions through the 
$75,000 jubilee fund provided by the Women's Missionary 
association means much more than the amount alone would 
indicate. It means that the heart of the Church is with the 
Seminary. 

While the material side in the building up of the Seminary 
should not throw its spiritual purposes into the background, 
the material side is so important and necessary to the spiritual 
side as to deserve careful attention and sincere appreciation. 
With this in mind, let us notice a few of the many persons 
that have contributed generously and substantially to the 
establishment and upbuilding of the Seminary. 

The name of John Kemp should be held in grateful re¬ 
membrance, not only for the gift to the Seminary of land 
valued at $10,000, but for the foresight and interest that 
reached beyond and above the prevailing ideas and standards 
of the times. He was born August 29, 1813. He became a 
minister in the Miami conference in 1850. He served in 
various pastorates. He was the first treasurer of the Home, 
Frontier, and Foreign Missionary society and the first general 
agent of the Seminary. When plans were being formed for 
the organization of the Women's Missionary association, he 
was the one from whom advice and encouragement were sought. 
He continued as a warm friend and supporter of the Seminary 
to the time of his death, December 29, 1883. 

J. M. Bonebrake, whose gift of $50,000 toward the endow¬ 
ment of the Seminary led to the name “ Bonebrake Theological 
Seminary," in honor of his father's six brothers, preachers in 
the United Brethren Church, died at his home in Veedersburg, 
Indiana, November 14, 1910. His gift, which was in land, 
was valued at $83,000, in 1909, at the time when the name 
of the Seminary was changed. When later the land was sold 
it brought nearly double the valuation named. He was a 
prosperous farmer and business man, but never held back his 
money from a good cause under the idea that the money was 
filthy or tainted, and thus not proper for the Lord's use. He 
always was at command for the Sunday-school work in his 
county and State. 


BONEBRAKE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 649 


Placed along with the names already given should be the 
names of W. H. McCormick, of Colorado, and Adam Sham- 
baugh, of Iowa, in view of whose gifts of $10,000 each, memorial 
buildings on the new Seminary campus have been named. 
Mrs. Harriett Long, of Dayton, Ohio, and Mrs. Mary A. Herr, 
of Pennsylvania, deceased, should be named as large givers to 
the Seminary and always its faithful friends. 

D. R. Miller became business manager of Union Biblical 
Seminary, as it first was called, in 1885, and for twelve years 
devoted himself earnestly to its financial advancement. His 
business ability had been tested and proven by his agency 
work for other Church institutions. He was bom June 13, 
1835. He became a member of Auglaize conference in 1860. 
He died August 5, 1909. The Christian church needs captains 
in finance as well as great preachers. C. M. Brooke was the 
business manager from 1901 to 1909. 

J. E. Fout, the present business manager, entered first 
upon his duties in 1909, and thus has filled out fifteen years 
in this taxing and trying position. He may look forward 
with confidence to the appraisal that the future will put on the 
work of these years. In his period, the net assets of the Semin¬ 
ary have been increased from $245,497 to $858,745. In St. 
Paul's cathedral, London, there is the inscription, “If you 
would see the monument of Sir Christopher Wren (the archi¬ 
tect), look around you." Some one, as he looks on the present 
buildings and grounds of the Seminary may bethink himself, 
and, with slight changes, make a new application of the in¬ 
scription given above. 

Lest it might seem that too much emphasis is put on the 
material interests of the Seminary, toward which there may 
be a tendency in the present period of material upbuilding, it 
may be said, in closing this sketch, that the spiritual side in 
the aims and work of the Seminary always is put first. Pastors 
and church workers at home, and missionaries in their far-off 
fields testify to the spiritual direction and uplift that they 
received in the Seminary. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE SUNDAY SCHOOL 

The Beginnings—The Sabbath-School Association—Later History. 

r HE modem Sunday-school movement originated with 
Robert Raikes, in London, in 1780. The purpose was 
to keep the children of the poor from the streets on Sun¬ 
day, to teach them to read and write, and to instruct 
them in the Bible. The introduction of the Sunday-school in 
America was slow, and the most of the early examples given 
were experimental and temporary. Real progress began under 
union auspices. The American Sunday-school union was formed 
in 1824. For the most part, comprehensive denominational 
work came later, though earlier there were schools connected 
with individual churches; and, yet, before all this, careful atten¬ 
tion was given to the religious education of children. In the 
rules drawn up by Otterbein in 1785 for his church, there was 
the following declaration: “The preacher shall make it one of his 
highest duties to watch over the rising youth, diligently instruct¬ 
ing them in the principles of religion, according to the Word of 
God. He shall catechize them once a week; and the more ma¬ 
ture in years, who have obtained a knowledge of the great truths 
of the gospel, shall be impressed with the importance of striving 
through divine grace to become worthy recipients of the holy 
sacrament.” 

It is impossible to indicate just when the first distinct 
Sunday schools were started in the United Brethren Church. 
Thomas Winters, who was licensed by Otterbein in 1799, and 
who preached for a number of years in the United Brethren 
Church, and then in the Reformed church, gave the following 
testimony: “Brother Otterbein, because of the bad state of 
religion, united with ministers of other churches for the pur¬ 
pose of promoting vital godliness. They came up into that 
part of the country where I lived, Washington county, Mary¬ 
land; created quite an excitement there, started prayer-meet- 


651 


652 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


ings^and Sabbath schools." The Sunday schools referred to 
were perhaps as much Sunday schools as some others claimed 
to exist in that period, but in character and continuance they 
could not have been at all what the later Sunday schools were. 
Newcomer records in his Journal for May 21, 1800, the follow¬ 
ing: “ Today I came to Brother Pfrimmer's. About thirty 
children had assembled at his house, to whom he was giving 
religious instruction. Some were under conviction. I also 
spoke to them. Their hearts were sensibly touched. May 
the Lord convert them truly." This meeting was not on a 
Sunday. It may, however, be considered a link between the 
“Sabbath schools" referred to by Thomas Winters and the 
undoubted Sunday-school work later promoted by Pfrimmer. 
The removal of Pfrimmer to Indiana in 1808, and the building 
of a log church on land owned by his son, already have received 
attention. The organization of a Sunday school at that place 
in 1820 now stands before us an epoch-making event. Sunday 
schools just then coming into some definite character, and 
Mr. Pfrimmer being what he was, the logical result was a 
Sunday school. He was a versatile and resourceful man, 
cheerful and companionable, gifted and equipped in musical 
lines, a Bible student, and of unquenchable zeal. It was with 
great propriety that the Sunday-school board arranged for a 
centennial celebration at Cory don, Harrison county, Indiana, 
occurring May 21-23, 1920. Corydon was the old capital of 
the Territory and State, and five miles from this place was the 
old home and church of John George Pfrimmer, physician, 
preacher, judge, and pioneer in Sunday-school work, and in 
the graveyard here rests his body. The celebration was given 
volume and prominence by the attendance from the twenty- 
eight United Brethren churches in Harrison county, by the 
attendance and participation of many of the leaders of the 
Church, and by the presence and words of appreciation of the 
governor of Indiana and a number of other State officials. 
For the sake of the army of Sunday-school scholars, we would 
be glad to have a picture of this John the Baptist in Sunday- 
school work. All that is allowed us is a composite made up 
from the remembrance of members of his family, in which he 


THE SUNDAY SCHOOL 


653 


is set forth as a short, heavy-set man, with round face, high 
forehead, eyes and nose moderately large, complexion dark, 
face beardy but always closely shaven, hair tolerably heavy and 
in late years iron grey. The youngsters may now draw the 
picture. 

The first German Sunday school in the Church, as far as 
known, was the Sunday school in the old Otterbein church, 
in Baltimore, which was organized in the spring of 1827. A 
peculiarity in this school for a number of years was that both 
morning and afternoon sessions were held. The same was 
true in a number of Baltimore Sunday schools. 

The Church Discipline of 1817 has a short section in 
answer to the question, “What shall be done in behalf of the 
rising generation?” The answer given is that they are often 
to be gathered together, instructed and prayed with “that 
they may learn to know their Creator and Redeemer in their 
youth.” To this section was added the following by the 
General Conference of 1849: “Whereas, The Sabbath-school 
institution is in every way worthy our highest regard and 
untiring efforts to promote as a branch of the Christian Church; 
Resolved, therefore, that we labor to have Sabbath schools 
organized throughout the Church. Resolved, that all our 
ministers, both itinerant and otherwise, do all consistently in 
their power to organize Sabbath schools in our societies, as 
far as practicable. Resolved, that our Printing Establishment 
furnish the Church as soon as practicable with books of suitable 
character for Sabbath schools. Meanwhile we will get the 
books whencesoever we see proper.” Already, in 1842, the 
“Sabbath School Songster” had been issued by the Publishing 
House. In 1854, the Children's Friend, and in 1865 the 
Missionary Visitor, were established as Sunday-school papers, 
the latter having also a use for adults. 

In 1865, the General Conference made a decisive advance 
by establishing the “Sabbath School Association of the United 
Brethren Church.” Isaac Crouse, of Sandusky conference, 
drew up the plan, including a constitution for the association 
that was adopted by the General Conference. He was elected 
to the office of secretary, which he continued to fill until 1877. 


654 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


In this period, he did much to build up the Sunday-school 
work. Colonel Robert Cowden, who took up the work thus 
far carried forward by Mr. Crouse, later spoke of him as not 
only a man of "great vision” but also as a man of "much 
method and precision,” in whose presence he felt "like a 
bramble bush beside a giant oak.” Colonel Cowden’s long 
career as secretary, extending to 1913, was signalized by great 
advances in organization, Bible study, teacher training, and 
convention work. Charles W. Brewbaker succeeded Colonel 
Cowden, and continues to fill the office of secretary. He 
brought to his duties expert preparation, and has carried out 
the most advanced and best-approved ideas in the Sabbath- 
school work of the Church. A chain of facts with dates may 
not be interesting reading, but it may be valuable for refer¬ 
ence. The following steps in connection with the United 
Brethren Church may be noted: The adoption of uniform 
lessons, 1872; the first Sunday-school library, 1874; the first 
Bible Normal class, 1876; the first Children's Day, 1881, the 
first year, June 4, afterward the first Sunday in June; general 
movement toward introduction of home department, 1891; a 
cradle roll, 1899; men’s movement and board of control of 
Sunday-school brotherhood and young people’s work, 1909; 
a superintendent for the elementary division, 1913. Mr. 
Brewbaker, the present general secretary, the editors of Sun¬ 
day-school literature, and the editor of the Watchword seek 
to secure for the Sunday schools and children of the United 
Brethren Church the advantage of recent advances and high 
standards in Sunday-school work. 

This sketch must not be closed without a notice of Colonel 
Cowden, not only the Nestor in the Sunday-school work of 
the United Brethren Church, but generally acknowledged to 
have had that eminence in the Sunday-school work of the 
country. He was born May 24, 1833, and died, as the result 
of being run down by an automobile, September 27, 1922. 
From 1877 to 1913, thirty-six years, he was the leader of the 
Sunday-school work of the United Brethren Church. His 
bringing up as a child, his record as the Colonel of a colored 
regiment, his character and work as a layman, his outreach as 


THE SUNDAY SCHOOL 


655 


the national chaplain of the Gideons, his adaptation and 
resourcefulness, his impressive presence and engaging person¬ 
ality, all added to his attractiveness and influence in the 
sphere to which he devoted his life. 






/ 



























* 





CHAPTER VII. 

YOUNG PEOPLE’S WORK 

First Steps—Christian Endeavor—Recent Developments—Board of Control. 

/T^ HE great feature of the modern church is the singling 
£ out of special classes to be served more efficiently, and 
then the making of these classes arms to serve the pur¬ 
poses of the whole church. The young people are to be 
helped for what they are, and then are to be helpers in all of the 
work of the kingdom of Christ. Various organizations, literary, 
musical, or social, were formed from time to time to help the 
young people and hold them to the Church, but at length it was 
found that a distinctly religious basis was at once most satisfy¬ 
ing and efficient. In 1871, the First United Brethren church, 
Dayton, Ohio, organized a Young Men’s Christian association, 
later changed to a Young People’s Christian association. The 
Summit Street United Brethren church, in the same city, the 
same year, among the different classes in the church, formed a 
distinctly young people’s class, and, in the winter of 1882 
and 1883, formed a Young People’s Christian association. 
But that which stimulated young people’s work everywhere 
was the founding, in 1881, in the congregation of Francis 
E. Clark, in Portland, Maine, of the first Young People’s 
Society of Christian Endeavor. With the rapid formation of 
similar societies in other places, and the formation of a general 
organization with Francis E. Clark as president, the move¬ 
ment soon came to be extended to all denominations. Some 
of the denominations quickly organized a general society of 
similar character within their denominational bounds, thinking 
thus more responsibly to direct the movement and better to 
conserve results to the denomination. The Methodists formed 
the Epworth League; the Lutherans, the Luther League; 
Baptists, the Baptist Young People’s Christian Union. In 
the United Brethren Church, a local Christian Endeavor 
Society was organized at Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania, in 

657 


658 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


March, 1883, and another at Manheim, Pennsylvania, in 
February, 1884. Others followed. Local societies reached 
out toward a more general organization. In the Allegheny 
conference, representatives of a number of societies organized, 
in 1887, a Young People's Christian association, which in the 
following year became a conference organization. In 1889, 
similar organizations were formed in the East Pennsylvania 
and Miami conferences, that in the latter conference bearing 
the name the Young People's Christian union. From different 
parts of the Church, a general organization was suggested and 
urged. Finally, at the monthly meeting of the United Breth¬ 
ren Ministerial association, of Dayton, Ohio, April 14, 1890, it 
was decided to call a convention with a view to the formation 
of such an organization. June 4, 1890, the convention met 
at the First United Brethren church, Dayton, fourteen annual 
conferences being represented. The plan adopted provided 
for the organization of a general union of all the Young People's 
societies of all kinds in the denomination, to be called the 
“ Young People's Christian Union of the United Brethren 
Church." The motto adopted was, “For the glory of God and 
the salvation of men." The object stated was “to unite the 
Young People's Christian societies of the entire Church of 
whatever name, for mutual helpfulness, for stimulating church 
loyalty, and an intelligent interest in the various Church enter¬ 
prises, and for the organization and extension of Young People's 
Christian societies within the Church." Constitutions were 
adopted for branch and local unions. Societies were at liberty 
to adopt the Christian Endeavor pledge and call themselves 
Christian Endeavor societies. A full corps of officers was 
elected, with J. P. Landis as president. 

Popular conventions, composed of members of all branch 
societies, were to be held biennially. Only delegates elected 
could vote on business matters connected with the organiza¬ 
tion. To an executive council, composed of the president, 
corresponding secretary, and nine members, meeting annually, 
the chief business of the union was committed. 

The first large enterprise undertaken was the planting of 
a church in Los Angeles, California, a total of $5,000 being 


YOUNG PEOPLE'S WORK 


659 


contributed for that purpose through several years. The 
General Conference of 1893 gave its approval to the organiza¬ 
tion, and authorized the publishing of a periodical for its 
benefit, a publication that appeared in September, 1893, under 
the name, “The Young People's Watchword," with H. F. 
Shupe, editor. In 1894, a Junior constitution was adopted, 
and two years later a Junior superintendent was elected. In 
1902, J. P. Landis retired as president, and W. A. Dickson 
retired as corresponding secretary, both these officers having 
given twelve years of efficient service. J. G. Huber and C. W. 
Brewbaker succeeded to the respective positions. 

The last biennial convention was held in Indianapolis in 
1908. At this time, the name of the union was changed to the 
Young People's Christian Endeavor Union of the Church of 
the United Brethren in Christ. A request was made that, 
as far as possible, new societies should be organized as Chris¬ 
tian Endeavor locals. Another important act was the adop¬ 
tion of a memorial asking the General Conference to constitute 
the Young People's movement a regular department of the 
Church. The General Conference of 1909 approved the acts 
of the Young People's organization, and constituted a Board 
of Control, having charge of the Sunday school, Brotherhood, 
and Young People's work. Colonel Robert Cowden, the 
secretary of the Sunday-school association, being the executive 
secretary of the three departments. 

The general conventions were for a time all that they were 
expected to be, large popular gatherings, but at length they 
came to be chiefly meetings for the transaction of the business 
of the union. In 1910, W. L. Bunger was chosen secretary of 
the Brotherhood and Young People's work, serving until 
November, 1912. In 1913, Miss Ida M. Koontz was chosen 
superintendent of the Juniors. Previously, beginning with 
1902, Mrs. G. W. Kitzmiller had given efficient service as 
Junior Superintendent. 

At the General Conference of 1913, O. T. Deever, of 
Kansas conference, was elected secretary of Young People's 
work. In taking up the work, as there were no adequate 
provisions for financing the department, he was obliged to do 


660 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


all kinds of service and resort to various devices to secure 
necessary funds. He held revivals, met various engagements, 
all of the time talking and promoting young people's work. 
Miss Koontz continued in Junior and related work, serving 
until 1915, when her whole time was given to work in the 
Sunday-school department. 

Prior to 1913, the Young People's movement grew and 
flourished by the power latent within it, coupled with a large 
amount of gratuitous service on the part of its officers and 
friends. Since 1914, when 0. T. Deever, the present secre¬ 
tary, took active charge, the work has been carried forward 
on more definite and less interrupted lines. The missionary 
training of the Juniors, under the direction of the Women's 
Missionary association, has yielded good results. Conferences 
of leaders in the different Bishops’ districts have been held, 
and in October 17-20, 1922, a general conference on Young 
People's work, participated in by leaders in general Church 
and Christian Endeavor work, was held in Dayton, Ohio. 
In May, 1922, Miss Myrtle M. Lefever became general Junior 
and Intermediate superintendent. In the time of the war, 
many hindrances were encountered. Recently, the upward 
trend was resumed. 

Two movements that the Young People's society has been 
highly successful in promoting and carrying forward are the 
Christian stewardship movement and the enlisting of life- 
service recruits. In the latter movement, 2,547 young people 
already are enlisted, a larger proportionate achievement than 
marks the efforts in any other church. The one of these move¬ 
ments, it will be noted, is on the material side, and the other 
on the spiritual side, if they are not, indeed, both on the 
spiritual side. 

As achievements are the ultimate test, this section will 
be closed with a summary of results. There are 750 Junior 
and 250 Intermediate societies, with a combined membership 
of 32,391. The number of Senior Christian Endeavor societies 
now is 1,590, with 64,194 members. This gives us a total of 
2,590 societies and 96,585 members. About 20,000 of these 
are enlisted now in reading through the Bible. 


YOUNG PEOPLE'S WORK 


661 


An agency performing a large work of which little public 
notice is taken, is the Board of Control, having supervision of 
the Sunday school, young people's and brotherhood work of 
the Church. This board was created by the General Confer¬ 
ence of 1909 with a view to correlating the work of these three 
departments. At present the men's classes in the Sunday 
schools are largely taking the place of a distinct brotherhood 
organization. The board is composed of nine members, at 
least five of whom are laymen, who are elected by the General 
Conference, together with the editors of the Sunday-school 
literature, the editor of the Watchword and the publishing 
agent. The Bishops are ex-officio members of the board. 



























V 








* 








CHAPTER VIII. 

BOARD OF EDUCATION 


The Founding—The Functions—The Achievements. 

r HE General Conference of 1869 authorized the Bishops 
to appoint a Board of Education. January 6,1870, the 
Bishops named as the members of this board, L. Davis, 
Daniel Shuck, W. C. Smith, M. Wright, E. Light, P. B. 
Lee, S. Weaver, D. Eberly, E. B. Kephart, W. S. Titus. The 
chief task given to them was that of founding a theological sem¬ 
inary. The seminary, under the name, Union Biblical Semin¬ 
ary, was established in 1871, and this and succeeding boards, for 
some time afterward, confined their attention largely to pro¬ 
moting the interests of this institution. In 1879, a commence¬ 
ment was made in gathering funds to be loaned without interest 
to persons preparing for the ministry. Soon this form of effort 
came to engage the chief attention of the Board of Education, 
a distinct board of trustees being elected by the General 
Conference for the theological seminary. The board, in its 
report to the General Conference, said: “The special task 
committed to the board, that of prosecuting the work of 
beneficiary education, has been carried forward with gratifying 
success/' In 1905, one-fourth of the amounts allowed bene¬ 
ficiaries was made a gift, and later some extra provisions were 
made in their behalf. As time passed, the attention of the 
board was given more and more to promoting the interest of 
the colleges, seminaries, and academies. 

Until 1913, the corresponding secretaries were elected by 
the executive committee, and gave but limited time to the work 
committed to the board, much of their service being gratuitous 
or with small compensation. The corresponding secretaries 
of this period were, H. A. Thompson, J. P. Landis, L. Book- 
waiter, J. W. Etter, and S. D. Faust. Very much that might 
be considered in connection with the Board of Education al- 


663 


664 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


ready has been noticed in connection with the accounts of the 
various institutions of learning. 

The work of education in the Church came to face such 
importance, problems and challenging opportunities, that the 
General Conference of 1913 decided to elect a secretary to give 
full-time service in promoting the various educational interests 
of the Church. W. E. Schell, long connected with the educa¬ 
tional work of the Church, was chosen to this position. As in 
the other Church departments, the time had come for definite 
aims and the carrying out of well-considered policies in the 
field of education. The general secretary gave himself un¬ 
reservedly to awakening interest in the subject of education, 
and stimulating and assisting the various educational institu¬ 
tions. As before, the securing and administration of funds for 
the benefit of candidates for the ministry continued to receive 
much attention. The report made to the General Conference 
in 1921 showed that, from 1879 to 1921, 1873 beneficiary loans 
had been made, amounting to $150,021.75. The Church still 
has vast resources in its young people and the wealth of its 
membership for enlarged results in the educational field. 


CHAPTER IX. 

BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION 


Antecedent Steps—Scope of Operation—United Enlistment Movement— 
Present and Future Demands. 

r HE Board of Administration was constituted by the 
General Conference at Wichita, Kansas, in 1917. It 
was not an invention or a gratuitous creation, but a 
necessary agency compelled by recent great changes in¬ 
side and outside of the Church. The time for independent, hap¬ 
hazard, and multitudinous effort was past. The material and 
the spiritual sides of church work had to be brought together. 
The various Church departments needed to be coordinated and 
unified. Of course, there would be misunderstandings and mis¬ 
takes. Approaches to the formation of the Board of Administra¬ 
tion existed in the tithing or Christian Stewardship movement 
present almost from the first in the young people's societies. 
The General Conference of 1901, in constituting a Christian- 
Stewardship commission, adopted the following language: 


The question of the stewardship of money rightly is 
claiming more and more attention from Christians everywhere, 
and is being looked upon by many of the followers of Christ as 
of supreme importance in the solution of the present financial 
problems of the Church, and likewise the surest provision for 
securing funds adequate to meet the many opportunities now 
before us in all the departments of Church work. 

We rejoice to note the degree of interest already awakened 
in this important subject, and believe that God is richly 
blessing churches and individuals that have honored him as 
faithful stewards. 

We, therefore, recommend that the General Conference 
authorize a special commission of five members, consisting of 
and including the secretaries of our Young People's Christian 
union, the Church Erection society, Sunday School board, 
Home, Frontier and Foreign Missionary society, and the 
Women's Missionary association. 

This commission shall be known as the Christian Steward¬ 
ship commission. 


665 


666 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


In 1909, the General Conference authorized the Christian 
Stewardship commission to employ a secretary to promote the 
work of the commission, and J. S. Kendall, who already had 
performed large service in this form of work, was chosen secre¬ 
tary. In the quadrennium, the work of the commission came 
to be more definite and varied, including plans for the local 
church and all of the church departments. In 1913, under the 
name of a Commission of Finance, a comprehensive system 
for the financing of all of the interests of the Church was 
adopted, including a complete budget system. Some of the 
departments that had been doing well by going directly to 
the Church for funds to carry on their work were at the first, 
as they anticipated, losers by the adoption of the budget 
system. J. S. Kendall was elected executive secretary of the 
Finance Commission. 

It will be seen that the steps as indicated above were 
leading directly to the constituting of the Board of Adminis¬ 
tration as adopted by the General Conference in 1917. On 
the establishing of the Board of Administration, J. S. Kendall 
was elected the first secretary. In October, 1918, he resigned 
as secretary and reentered the pastorate. After the years of 
his planning and urgency along financial lines, he may have 
felt that the ear of the Church was dulled to his appeals and 
that another voice might bring new quickening. S. S. Hough 
was elected to take up the responsible duties as secretary, and 
in consequence resigned as secretary of the Foreign Missionary 
society. It is not strange that someone, in naming the quali¬ 
fications of a secretary of the Board of Administration, named 
as the three essentials, “a hard head, a soft heart, and a thick 
skin.” Certainly, while the opportunities for service are large, 
the problems and tasks are difficult. An effort was made to 
mobilize all of the agencies and resources of the Church under 
what was called the United Enlistment movement, the financial 
goal of which was to secure $4,000,000 for the general work of 
the Church. Subscriptions made, reached beyond $3,000,000, 
but the amount paid in, in the specified time was $1,877,755.19. 
While the amount fell short of the goal, it yet, at least for the 
time, greatly enlarged the resources of the Church. The cam- 


BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION 


667 


paign was in connection with the Interchurch movement that 
so suddenly assumed such great prominence, and shared with 
nearly all of the churches of America the gains and likewise 
the unfavorable results of that movement. The various 
churches, through their departments or otherwise, underwrote 
the expense of the movement to the extent of above six million 
dollars, the expectation being that friends of the churches, not 
holding actual membership, would make up fully the expense 
of the movement. But either because they had paid directly 
to the churches, or because of insensibility to appeal, the 
contributions from this source fell far short. To their honor, 
the churches did not shrink or default, and in 1924, the affairs 
of the movement were closed with every dollar of expense paid. 
While the cost was large, and there were some unfavorable 
reactions, substantial benefits resulted. In consequence of 
the conditions just stated, and also of others entering in, some 
of them due to the war, the sums written in the budget, follow¬ 
ing the United Enlistment movement, have not been met, 
and the departments and institutions of the Church have 
suffered and have been imperiled. However, through larger 
giving, closer cooperation, and a measure of retrenchment, a 
more hopeful and dependable basis is being reached. The 
annual benevolence budget at this time is placed at $1,000,000. 

The plan of the Board of Administration, with some 
changes was continued by the General Conference of 1921. 
S. S. Hough was continued as general secretary. The Board 
has such important functions, being in the intervals of the 
General Conference sessions something of a little General 
Conference, that its composition and some of its duties and 
prerogatives may well be given: 

The general Board of Administration shall consist of the 
Bishops, ex-officio, and one minister and one layman for every 
fifty thousand members or fraction thereof from each Bishop’s 
district in the United States, to be elected by the General 
Conference. The General Conference shall elect an executive 
secretary. 

The Board of Administration is entrusted with the pro¬ 
motion of the financial plan of the Church. 


668 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The board shall provide for the General Conference 
expense fund. 

The board shall direct general campaigns during the 
quadrennium to attain such Church goals as have been de¬ 
termined by the General Conference. 

The board shall receive reports from the general Church 
treasurer, and to it he shall be responsible for the faithful 
performance of his duties. 

The board shall direct the auditing of the accounts of all 
the departments of the Church, with a view to securing such 
uniformity of method and completeness of form as shall be 
most efficient, and shall give any needed information to the 
Church. 

The board shall have the management of the Ministerial 
Pension and Annuity plan, subject to the provisions of the 
plan as adopted by the General Conference. 

The board shall fill any vacancies in General Conference 
offices that may occur during the quadrennium, in case there 
is no specific board charged with that duty, and no other 
provision of the Discipline to fill such office. 

The board shall be the coordinating body for the de¬ 
nomination to secure harmony and efficiency in the plans of all 
Church departments. It shall have an advisory relation to 
all departments as to business methods and plans. 

The board shall recommend to succeeding General Confer¬ 
ences such changes in the Discipline and plans of organization, 
and such methods of cooperation as it believes will increase the 
efficiency and coordinate the work of the entire Church, its 
recommendations to be printed and mailed to each delegate 
at least thirty days before the convening of the conference. 

The board shall study the charters of institutions and 
societies of the Church, and supply the General Conference 
any needed information; also, it is empowered to harmonize 
the action of the General Conference with such charters and 
with State laws so that our property and interests may in all 
instances be preserved. 

At least once each year the board shall call a conference 
of the annual conference superintendents, at such time and 
place as the board may designate, to consider questions of 
general interest, particularly in connection with the attain¬ 
ment of Church goals. 


CHAPTER X. 

Commission on Evangelism 

/ N the first place, evangelism was the main and almost the 
only activity of the Church. But, as other forms of special 
activity came to be marked out, it seemed to become neces¬ 
sary that evangelism should have a title and sphere and offi¬ 
cer of its own. In the quadrennium 1901-1905, an evangelistic 
committee promoted a revival campaign, being provided by the 
Board of Missions with a sum of $8,000 for that purpose. 
When the Home Missionary society was given separate exist¬ 
ence in 1905, the following was incorporated in its constitution: 
“It shall have charge of the general evangelistic work of the 
Church, employing only representative men, and in such fields 
as it may be select." In 1906, J. E. Shannon was employed 
for this work by the Home Mission and Sunday-school boards 
jointly. The work was enlarged in the succeeding years. 
In 1913, a General Commission on Evangelism was constituted, 
consisting of the secretary of the Home Missions board and 
the secretary of the Stewardship commission, and four minis¬ 
ters and four laymen. The commission was left to finance its 
own operations, but with an exchange of pastors and a good 
deal of gratuitous service it succeeded in reaching considerable 
results. The General Conference of 1917 continued much 
the same agency and methods, however, appointing by resolu¬ 
tion W. M. Weekley, Bishop emeritus, superintendent of 
evangelism. The General Conference of 1921 decided to 
constitute a department of evangelism and put the same on 
a par with other Church departments. J. E. Shannon was 
made secretary of evangelism. 


669 


CHAPTER XI. 

MINISTERIAL PENSIONS 

r HE Ministerial Pension Board is among the latest agen¬ 
cies to be constituted by the Church, and yet steps lead¬ 
ing up to it started with the very beginning of the 
Church. Small sums of money were given irregularly 
and without system for the support of old or worn-out preachers. 
Then came the benevolent societies, preachers’ aid, through the 
annual conferences, and the dividends from the Publishing 
House. But none of the plans or agencies was efficient,adequate, 
or immediate in meeting the great and real needs universally 
recognized. The Church now feels comfortably assured that the 
plan adopted by the General Conference of 1921 will do much 
in filling the long felt want. When the plan is in full operation, 
four-fifths of the funds for the payment of pensions will be 
derived from money supplied by the Church and one-fifth 
from payments from those that become contributing members. 
At the present time, ministers that have passed a certain age 
and have taken out membership are eligible for pensions with¬ 
out making payments. Pensions already have been announced 
for 141 beneficiaries of this class. In devising and putting 
into operation the pension plan, the Church has had the 
expert assistance of H. H. Baish, who is at the head of the 
Pennsylvania State Teachers’ Retirement Fund. 


671 




SOLOMON KEISTER 












































































































































































































































JOHN DODDS 


JOHN THOMAS 
















CHAPTER XII. 

BENEVOLENT HOMES 

Old People's Home—Quincy Orphanage—Otterbein Home—Baker Home. 

/ N the Church, there were no antecedents for the existing 
benevolent homes. In the Historical Society room, there is 
a framed baptismal certificate, signed by Otterbein, that 
was sent a number of years ago from a poorhouse where the 
child named in the certificate, then an old man, was an inmate. 
In early times, in Ohio, it was common to put dependents up 
at auction, the lowest bid for caring for them being accepted. 
No slight is to be put on present methods by which the whole 
community undertakes to care for those destitute and helpless. 
This advance is a mark and result of Christian civilization. 
Yet the Christian Church has a special privilege and duty in 
nurturing childhood for growth and service, and caring for 
the aged and the unfortunate. The nearest parallel to the 
present benevolent homes was a United Brethren hospital at 
Beatrice, Nebraska, that was established in 1909, and was 
maintained for some time thereafter. 

The first benevolent home in the Church was the Old 
People's Home established by Z. A. Colestock, a retired minister 
of Pennsylvania conference, in April, 1893, at Mechanicsburg, 
Pennsylvania. At the first, accommodations were furnished 
in his residence, which he made a gift for the purpose. Large 
gifts were not asked for or received at the first, as the most of 
those that applied for admission were not so much destitute 
of means for their support as they were destitute of the care 
and companionship that they needed 

The second benevolent institution to be established by 
the Church was the Quincy Orphanage, located at Quincy, 
Pennsylvania. A boy and a girl of different families, who had 
been left orphans, were adopted into the family of a kind- 
hearted farmer, living near Quincy. When they grew up, they 
were married and inherited the farm on which they had been 


673 


674 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


brought up. These orphans became well known as Mr. and 
Mrs. H. J. Kitzmiller. Though the husband became a minis¬ 
ter, the husband and wife are best known for the gift of their 
farm for the establishing of an orphanage, and for the many 
years of loving and capable service that they have given in the 
building up and management of the orphanage. The Quincy 
Orphanage was founded in April, 1903, just ten years after 
the founding of the Old People's Home. Measures were taken 
in 1909, and completed in 1913, by which the latter was given 
a place on the grounds of the former, and was formally united 
with it, the name for the combined institutions becoming the 
Quincy Orphanage and Home. The institution has the recog¬ 
nition of the General Conference, and has the hearty support 
of the annual conferences of the East district. The farm has 
been increased from 163 acres at the first to 225 acres at present. 
The entire property of the Orphanage and Home is valued at 
$270,000. Of the 350 children admitted, 80 have reached the 
age limit of eighteen and gone out into the world. The building 
erected for the accommodation of the old people, at a cost of 
$28,000 is well suited for its purpose. It was fitting that Z. A. 
Colestock, the founder of the Old People's Home, should here, 
at the age of nearly one hundred, close his earthly course. 
The Quincy Orphanage, by its substantial and suitable build¬ 
ings, its scientific industrial methods, the physical, intellectual 
and spiritual training of the children, and the care and comfort 
that it provides for age, commends itself to the esteem and 
liberal support of the Church. 

The Otterbein Home located twenty-four miles south of 
Dayton, Ohio, and four miles west of Lebanon, came to the 
Church as a surprise, or, considering the proportions involved, 
an astonishment. A beginning with a farm of 4,005 acres, 
with buildings to match, was more than could have been 
expected. The farm generally was known as the Shaker farm. 
The Shakers, along with other peculiarities, held strictly to 
celibacy, and owned all property in common. Their zeal and 
enthusiasm were so great at first as to draw to them many 
adherents, who brought their property with them. Thus, they 
came to have many members and to establish numerous com- 


BENEVOLENT HOMES 


675 


munities. They first located themselves on the land near 
Lebanon in 1805, giving the name Union Village to the com¬ 
munity that they established. As later few persons joined 
them from without, and as there were no births within, the 
numbers in their various communities dwindled. As the 
diminishing number at Union Village saw the time of extinc¬ 
tion coming, they and those of their sect at other places began 
to plan for the changes that they knew must come. At Union 
Village the Shaker family had decreased to twenty-six. 

It was easy and a pleasure to deal with the Shakers. 
Their uprightness and honor were beyond question. Also, 
they desired that their property should not be diverted to other 
than worthy uses. 

In 1909, J. M. Phillippi, editor of the Religious Telescope, 
visited Union Village and wrote an article regarding it. Soon 
there broke into his mind the idea of an orphanage and home, 
which he confided to W. R. Funk, the publishing agent. The 
idea was suggested to the Shakers the following year. Nego¬ 
tiations were carried on until 1912, when a contract for pur¬ 
chase was signed, the deed for the land and security for deferred 
payments being signed March 5, 1913. The purchase price 
was $325,000, $50,000 of which was to be cash, $100,000 March 
1, 1918, and $175,000 March 1, 1923. The General Confer¬ 
ence of 1913 approved the establishment of the Home, and 
provided for its government. J. R. King has been superinten¬ 
dent from the first, and Mrs. King has been matron. In the 
first ten years, 300 boys and girls were received, and sixteen 
discharged at the age of eighteen. In the same time, 140 
aged persons, including twelve ministers and seven ministers' 
wives, were received, of whom more than fifty closed their 
days in the Home. In this period, through the friendly co¬ 
operation of the Shakers, careful financing, and generous con¬ 
tributions from the Church, the net assets of the institution 
grew from nothing at the beginning to $450,000. It has been 
a great problem, and still remains such, to care for the increas¬ 
ing family at the Home and complete the payment for the 
property, including the large sums for the equipment and 
stocking of the farm and the erection of new buildings. 


676 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The Baker Home for retired ministers, located on a tract 
of land called Otterbein, twenty-six miles east of Los Angeles, 
California, owes its existence to generous gifts of R. M. Baker 
and wife, of Monrovia, California. The Home was incorporated 
in 1911. On the twenty-acre plot belonging to the Home, six 
inexpensive cottages and two substantial modem flats have 
been built. Here seventeen people find homes in their old age. 
The mild climate and agreeable surroundings, and the possi¬ 
bilities for continued expansion and improvement, make the 
home an increasing attraction and hope for the Church, es¬ 
pecially so to ministers of the Church that may be thinking of 
needs when their working days are past. 


CHAPTER XIII. 


GENERAL BOARD OF CHURCH TRUSTEES 
HISTORICAL SOCIETY 

General Board of Church Trustees 
INCE 1889 there has been a General Board of Church 

\ Trustees, incorporated under the laws of Ohio, May 6, 
1890. The General Conference elects a Board of Trus¬ 
tees for the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, 
consisting of twelve members, to receive and hold in trust, or 
apply for the benefit of the Church, all funds, donations, and be¬ 
quests that may be given to the Board or to the United Brethren 
Church, as such, for any benevolent purpose whatsoever. This 
board is incorporated and handles only such funds and interests 
as may come to it from the General Church. It is not to be con¬ 
fused with the board of church trustees in the local congrega¬ 
tion, nor with the general Church boards, each of which holds 
and manages the property of its department. 

Historical Society 

The Historical Society of the Church was organized in 
May, 1885. Its purpose is to collect and preserve information 
in connection with the rise and progress of the Church; also, 
objects of curiosity and interest in the form of manuscripts, 
books, pamphlets, medals, portraits, etc. In cooperation with 
the Publishing House, the society seeks to preserve, complete 
files of all periodicals and books published by the Church, and 
offers aid to the annual conferences and other organizations in 
the preservation of their minutes and records. 

A large room in the new Publishing House has been set 
apart for the use of the Society. Here a number of valuable 
articles have been gathered, including files of the" periodicals, 
copies of church publications, autograph letters and manu¬ 
scripts of Otterbein and other leaders, conference records, 
pictures, and photographs of men and places, oil paintings of 
some of the Bishops, relics from Otterbein's home, and other 
articles of interest and value. 


677 


PART IV. 


CHAPTER I. 

ANNUAL CONFERENCES 

Virginia—West Virginia—Pennsylvania—East Pennsylvania—Allegheny— 
East Ohio—Erie—Miami—Scioto—Sandusky—Indiana—White River— 
St. Joseph—Michigan—Illinois—Wisconsin—Kentucky—Tennessee 
—Florida—Iowa—Minnesota—Missouri—Kansas—Nebraska— 
Colorado—Oklahoma—New Mexico— Montana—Oregon 
—Columbia River—California—Ohio German— 

Discontinued Conferences. 

/ N attempting to sketch the history of the several annual 
conferences, the writer has the conviction that readers will 
have a more particular interest in the account of the confer¬ 
ences with which they have some connection. Some fea¬ 
tures, therefore, that may not be of general interest may be 
included. The filling of gaps and the supplying of much particu¬ 
lar detail will have to be left to the histories of the different con¬ 
ferences, a number of which now are in course of preparation by 
interested members of the respective conferences. For the older 
conferences, an account of their beginnings already has been 
given. In giving the later history, some overlappings will be 
unavoidable. While the conferences named for description 
are those whose names are given on the present chart of con¬ 
ferences, yet, in connection with the same, reference will be 
made to conferences that have been lost by redistricting or 
absorption. 


Virginia Conference 

Virginia conference, called the Hagerstown conference in 
1829, but named the Virginia conference in the list of confer¬ 
ences represented in the General Conference of 1833, has 
suffered the loss of two large areas from its territory. The 
first was through the formation of the Parkersburg, or West 
Virginia, conference in 1857, and the second, through the forma- 


679 


680 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


tion of the Maryland conference in 1887, eight out of nine 
quarterly conferences voting, according to a provision of the 
previous General Conference, for a new conference. The 
forming of the new conference in what now is West Virginia 
was concurred in fully, but the loss of the territory in Mary¬ 
land was much deplored by the Virginia part of the conference. 

Following the heroic days marked by the young manhood 
of Glossbrenner, Markwood, Coursey, Bachtel and others, a 
number of worthy successors entered the ministry prior to 1857, 
the time when the Parkersburg conference was formed. 

In 1839, the conference met in the primitive New Jeru¬ 
salem church in Maryland. John Ruebush was given license 
to preach at the session of that year. He was a stalwart 
preacher and successful evangelist. In 1856, he was sent by 
the conference as a missionary to East Tennessee, where he 
labored with success until interrupted by the breaking out of 
the war. In 1866, he resumed work in Tennessee, but gave his 
later labors to work in the Virginia conference. He died in 
1881. In 1840, Benjamin Stickley was licensed. From a 
distiller and an inciter to disturbance of religious meetings, he 
became an untiring evangelist, laboring chiefly in the roughest 
mountain regions. As a friend of the Union cause, he was 
thrown into a filthy prison, where his brave spirit was broken. 
He died in the year 1864-65 in Iowa. G. W. Statton, licensed 
in 1848, was an able preacher. His labors took him over all 
of the conferenced territory, in the Rocky West as well as in the 
quiet parishes of the East. He later preached in Iowa and in 
other districts in the West. I. K. Statton, a brother of G. W. 
Statton, was licensed in 1850. He was a man of unusual 
natural and acquired ability. After preaching in all parts of 
the Virginia conference, he transferred his labors to the West, 
serving principally in Illinois and Iowa. He was gifted as a 
preacher, and his good social qualities made him a model 
pastor. After a fruitful ministry, he died October 9, 1903. 

In 1851, the conference declined to cooperate with Mt. 
Pleasant College, having in mind the establishment of a school 
of its own. However, the next year it decided on cooperation. 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


681 


The conference steadily declared its opposition to slavery. 
It was embarrassed greatly in trying to carry on religious work 
in slave territory, its position being made more difficult by 
utterances given in free states. Articles in the Religious 
Telescope added to the difficulties already existing. A reso¬ 
lution incorporating the following language was adopted by a 
vote of eighteen to four: “That this conference, from the 
fact that the Religious Telescope, our Church paper, is calcu¬ 
lated to hinder, rather than to promote the Church within the 
bounds of our conference, in consequence of its containing 
abolition matters from time to time, take into consideration 
the propriety of publishing within its own borders a religious 
paper for its own benefit.” A resolution adopted the following 
year showed that the irritation was not subsiding. Possibly 
suggested by these utterances, but without any authority from 
the conference, W. M. K. Cain, who was licensed to preach 
in 1855, and was appointed to a field in Mason county, began 
in that year, or the preceding year, to publish a periodical 
under the name the “Virginia Telescope,” at West Columbia, 
Mason county, of what now is West Virginia. Several sharp 
thrusts at the paper were made by the Religious Telescope. 
The proprietor of the paper seemed suddenly to have developed 
a strong antipathy toward the negro. He believed that the 
United Brethren Church would be split over the question of 
slavery as had been the Methodist Episcopal church, and that 
a paper voicing southern views would be opportune at this 
time. G. W. Statton, the presiding elder, soon discerned the 
purpose of the publication, and used his influence or authority 
to cut short its course. As the first notice of the Virginia Tele¬ 
scope is contained in the Religious Telescope of January 17, 
1855, and as W. M. K. Cain did not receive a license to preach 
until the meeting of the Virginia conference on the 29th of 
that month, it seems probable that the publication of the 
paper began in the latter part of 1854, and that other persons 
than M. H. Cain had to do with its beginning. The last 
reference to it is in the Religious Telescope of June 13, 1855. 

Two notable accessions in 1815 were Z. Warner and Isaiah 
Baltzel, both reaching their chief celebrity outside of the mother 


682 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


conference. In 1865, J. W. Fulkerson, who had been received 
in 1843, was transferred to Iowa conference, thence entering 
the bounds of the Minnesota conference. John Haney became 
a member of Pennsylvania conference in 1829, a member of 
Virginia conference in 1830, of Pennsylvania conference in 
1836, and renewed his membership in the Virginia conference 
in 1841. In 1850 he went to Minnesota. Fulkerson and 
Haney performed a long and valuable service in Minnesota, 
but they never forgot their old Virginia home. 

In 1862, five men beginning a long and eminent career of 
service, were received into the southern section of the con¬ 
ference: H. A. Bovey, J. W. Hott, J. K. Nelson, A. M. Evers, 
and C. T. Stearn. The reference to the southern section of the 
conference brings out the fact that in 1862, 1863, and 1864, 
separate conference sessions were held on the two sides of the 
shifting belligerent line. Notwithstanding the great distrac¬ 
tion, some results were achieved. 

Some of the foremost preachers and leaders in this period, 
up to 1887, were the following: J. W. Howe, received in 1858, 
especially influential in building up the temporal interests of 
the Church, and as a representative in the General Conference, 
dying in 1903; A. P. Funkhouser, received in 1872, prominent 
in the policies and activities of the conference and the Church 
in general, an educator, elected associate editor of the Religious 
Telescope, prominent also in civic affairs; he died in 1917; 
C. I. B. Brane, received in 1876, devout and gifted as a writer 
and speaker, long the associate editor of the Religious Tele¬ 
scope, his death occurring in 1920. The conference received 
valuable accessions in C. M. Hott, licensed in 1876, and G. P. 
Hott, licensed in 1879, the former a preacher of unusual gifts, 
and the latter abundant in various labors in the Church. 
H. H. Fout, already noticed as a Bishop, was received in 1885. 
The conference early began to cooperate with Lebanon Valley 
College, and in 1884 voted to purchase Shenandoah Institute. 

Virginia conference, after each reduction of its territory, 
the last by the formation of the Maryland conference in 1887, 
began with courage to cultivate its more restricted field. In 
the later period as well as in the earlier period, many of the 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


683 


preachers raised up in Virginia went out to other conferences 
to stimulate and build up the Church through their devotion 
and enthusiasm. Of those now in service, who have borne and 
are bearing the heat and burden of the day, a few may be 
named: J. H. Brunk, the present conference superintendent, 
who became a member of the conference in 1897; W. F. Gruver, 
received in 1887, who has served well and usefully as pastor, 
conference superintendent, and representative in the General 
Conference; W. L. Childress, the poet of the conference, and a 
preacher and pastor as well. A further glance over the long 
roll of the years fixes on the name of W. H. Burtner, not an 
itinerant, but a godly and industrious local preacher, out of 
whose home went four efficient preachers of the gospel— 
L. 0. Burtner, N. W. Burtner, 0. W. Burtner, and E. E. 
Burtner. J. H. Ruebush, as an educator, as a musical director 
and publisher, and as a churchman in the laity, may be named. 
Others, eminent for their service, there have been, whose 
names the cramped scroll on earth may not include, but their 
record is on high. Younger men there are for whose deeds a 
clean open page waits. 

West Virginia Conference 

It has been said that when the Lord made the world he 
had much material left over, and that he piled it up in West 
Virginia. West Virginia need not be angered at the gibe. 
She has the coal and the oil and gas in abundance, and likewise 
also the raw materials and the laboratories for the making of 
men, and this includes the making of Christians and preachers 
as well. The State itself, formed in 1863, in the crucial days of 
the war, is a monument to the devotion of the people to liberty 
and the federal union. 

Some account already has been given of the scaling of the 
mountains by the hardy preachers of Old Virginia, and their 
victorious labors among the hills of New Virginia. As early 
as 1836, Jackson mission, on the border of the Ohio river, was 
established. While for a time this was turned over to the Scioto 
conference, the occupancy of the interior parts of the country 


684 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


was being established, and soon all of the territory east of the 
Ohio was claimed and occupied by the Virginia conference. 

In 1835, the Scioto conference established a mission in 
Cabell county, Virginia, D. C. Topping being the preacher in 
charge. It was probably the outgrowth of work done on the 
opposite side of the Ohio river by the Scioto conference. In 
1837, the name was changed from Virginia mission to Guyan- 
dotte circuit. The charge was maintained until 1847, when it 
and the adjacent Jackson mission were given to the Virginia 
conference. Jackson mission was established by the Virginia 
conference, but at the request of this conference was taken 
charge of in 1840 by the Scioto conference. 

At this time, the salt belt along the Ohio river was at¬ 
tracting prospectors and settlers from different parts of the 
country. The United Brethren preachers were following their 
people. In 1836, the Virginia conference appointed M. Michael 
to Jackson mission, which included especially Jackson and 
Mason counties. Mr. Michael, accompanied by J. Rhinehart, 
presiding elder of the Maryland district, came to the vicinity 
of New Haven, Mason county. There they preached in a 
log church belonging to the Lutherans, and, on the evening of 
August 21, 1836, Mr. Rhinehart received twenty-one persons 
into the Church. Mr. Michael was returned to the charge 
the following year. Other appointments followed until 1840, 
when the Scioto conference made H. Jones, appointed to the 
charge by the Virginia conference, its appointee for Jackson 
mission. In 1847, the Virginia conference requested and was 
granted the return of Jackson mission. 

In 1847, M. Michael seems to have been appointed to 
Jackson mission. It is claimed also that within this year a 
good-sized frame church was erected at Sand Hill, near Point 
Pleasant, being the first United Brethren church erected 
within the present territory of West Virginia conference. It 
had a side door leading into a separate apartment for slaves. 

In 1840, a colony of Germans, members of Otterbein's 
church in Baltimore, came to Braxton county, near the center 
of West Virginia, and formed what since has been known as 
the German settlement. John Engle at first preached for 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


685 


them. In 1842, Bishop Russel came from Baltimore and 
formed a circuit including Braxton, Lewis, Gilmer, Upshur, 
and Barbour counties, which was served by Mr. Engle until 
1846, when, under the name of Lewis mission, the Virginia 
conference assigned Benjamin Stickley to it. Some of the 
time it was served under the name of Buckhannon circuit. 
Here then were the two foci about which the work in West 
Virginia was built up, the one in Mason county, and the other 
in Braxton county. In 1851, a Western Virginia district was 
constituted, consisting of six charges. To this part of the 
territory of the conference, some of the strongest preachers 
were sent. G. W. Statton was presiding elder in 1855, at 
the time when W. M. K. Cain was endeavoring to establish his 
Virginia Telescope at West Columbia, as already referred to. 

At the session of the Virginia conference in the spring of 
1857, a memorial was voted asking the General Conference, 
soon to convene, to constitute the western district a new con¬ 
ference, to be known as the Parkersburg conference. 

March 4, 1858, the new conference met at Centerville, 
Tyler county. The charter members were J. Bachtel, W. 
Miles, Levi Hess, J. W. Perry, Z. Warner, S. Martin, Eli 
Martin, William James, J. P. White, H. R. Davis, and D. 
Engle. The talent and consecration of Bachtel have been 
referred to. J. W. Miles was an Englishman of education, 
and, when the free-school system was introduced, became the 
first superintendent of schools in Gilmer county. D. Engle 
had received a good education in Germany. Z. Warner had 
been a student in the North-western academy of Virginia, and 
became the second superintendent of schools in Tyler county. 
J. W. Perry had the advantage of academic training. Levi 
Hess and H. R. Davis had received a medical education. Eli 
Martin was educated for the legal profession. At the first, 
there were eleven preachers, ten charges, and 1,327 members. 
The first year there was an increase of 567 members. The 
name Parkersburg conference was changed to West Virginia 
conference in 1897. 

The chivalry of the earlier and later preachers in West 
Virginia has not been excelled by the preachers in any other 


686 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


part of the Church. Under the leadership of Z. Warner, a 
regular school was carried on for the development and equip¬ 
ment of the preachers. With good material to start with, an 
unfailing enthusiasm, and a responsive people to appeal to, it 
is not strange that there came to be a strong ministry and a 
loyal laity. Ministers not already named that filled a large 
place in the work of the conference, were: S. J. Graham, E. 
Harper and William Slaughter. Some of the prominent min¬ 
isters whose names are yet on the conference roll are, J. T. 
Foster, E. H. Waters, C. H. Cox, J. M. Knight. Clarksburg 
is credited with four churches, Huntington with three and 
Parkersburg with three. 

West Virginia conference has transferred to other confer¬ 
ences in the Church more than four score preachers, the names 
of a few of these being, J. W. Boggess, L. W. Lutz, R. A. Hitt, 
E. L. Reese, and M. L. Weekley. West Virginia is home soil 
to Bishop W. M. Weekley. The members of West Virginia 
conference, ministerial and lay, have impressed themselves on 
the Commonwealth of West Virginia as perhaps the member¬ 
ship of no other denomination has done. They have touched 
and influenced public life in no ordinary way. Z. Warner, in 
1882, organized the State in the temperance movement that 
led to the temperance triumph in 1912. J. B. Ware may be 
named among the capable and active laymen. 

The total church membership in the conference is 10,337. 

Pennsylvania Conference. 

Pennsylvania conference, starting out as a separate con¬ 
ference, with the boundaries given it by the General Conference 
of 1829, practically from the first, but formally in 1837, yielded 
Frederick county, Maryland, to the Virginia Conference. In 
1833, it gained from Muskingum conference the Western 
counties of Pennsylvania. By its own action, in 1838, it divided 
its territory, and constituted Allegheny conference. The 
development of the conference for a time within its narrowed 
bounds has received notice. Through a course of several 
years, a larger number of effective preachers were entering the 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


687 


ranks, and the large, unwieldy circuits were being divided into 
smaller fields. Showing that the conference was taking its 
responsibility seriously, the session of 1844 was continued 
through eight days. In 1844, John Neidig and, in 1845, John 
Snyder passed from labor to reward. These were among the 
last to disappear of the first generation of preachers. 

In 1845, the conference, at its session beginning February 
12 adopted the following resolution: “Resolved, That this 
conference pray the General Conference through its delegates 
to divide this conference and make the Susquehanna river to 
be the dividing line.” The General Conference, meeting in 
May following, granted the request. The conference met as a 
whole on February 20, 1846, and amicably made all of the ar¬ 
rangements for separation. There seemed to be little reason for 
the separation outside of a measure of convenience, and the 
fact that the German language was planted more firmly on the 
east side of the Susquehanna. In the division, East Pennsyl¬ 
vania conference had, according to the secretary's record, 
thirty-six members, and the West Pennsylvania conference had 
forty-seven members. The indications of the secretary how¬ 
ever, are not entirely full or accurate. East Pennsylvania 
conference had the larger room for expansion. A statement of 
the first assignment of preachers to the fields of the two con¬ 
ferences will give the best idea of the strength and prospects of 
the two conferences: East conference: Christian Peffley, 
presiding elder; Highspire station, Simon Dresbach; Dauphin 
circuit, Jacob Scholler, John Mayer; Halifax circuit, Jacob 
Roop, Joseph Young; Lancaster circuit, George Gilbert, David 
Gingerich; Berks county, Simon Noll; Pine Grove mission, 
Adam Sand; Northumberland mission, Samuel Seiders; Leban¬ 
on station, Christian S. Crider, Lebanon circuit, Henry Staub, 
Gideon Smith. West conference: John Russel, presiding elder; 
Chambersburg station, John Fohl; Shopp's station, Jacob 
Kessler, Samuel Maloy; Hershey's station, George Miller; 
Chambersburg circuit, J. C. Smith, J. M. Bishop; Rocky 
Spring circuit, Alexander Owen; Perry county mission, John 
Dickson; York county mission, Samuel Enterline; Dover 
circuit, Tobias Crider; York mission, Enoch Hoffman; Balti- 


088 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


more mission, Peter Bitzel, A. Marker; Baltimore station, 
Jacob Erb. 

It is not strange that the work of the Pennsylvania confer¬ 
ence moved forward with men of such unreserved faithfulness 
in its corps of workers as J. Russel, J. Erb, and J. Dickson, who 
deserve as much honor for their work in the conference as for 
their larger work as Bishops. Alexander Owen had gifts of a 
high order, both as a thinker and orator. After serving im¬ 
portant charges in his conference, he served as president of Mt. 
Pleasant College, as editor of the Unity Magazine, and as 
president of Otterbein University. He was bom October 22, 
1820, and died December 3,1861. W. B. Raber, was a preacher 
whose large gifts were well matched by his consecration to his 
work. He had better academic training than most of the 
preachers of the times. He died February 11, 1875. Samuel 
Enterline did much in planting the Church in York county, 
and also in building up the Church elsewhere. He was the 
pastor of Otterbein’s congregation in Baltimore, 1854 to 1857. 
Christian Crider, a grandson of Martin Crider, supported by 
Otterbein’s church in Baltimore, began in 1840 the establish¬ 
ment of the Church in the city of York. Yet, to J. C. Smith 
belongs the credit of laying the foundation for the large scope 
that the work of the Church in that city came to have. He was 
born January 22, 1819, and died November 13, 1886. Z. A. 
Colestock was a long and firm link in the work of the conference 
and the Church. He was born March 25, 1824, and died 
January 19, 1924, lacking but little of being one hundred 
years old. He was received into the Muskingum conference 
in 1844, and in 1846 began his labors in Pennsylvania confer¬ 
ence. He served important charges and as presiding elder for 
many years. He attended seventy-five consecutive sessions 
of the conference. He was the founder of the Old People’s 
Home at Mechanicsburg, now relocated at Quincy, Penn¬ 
sylvania. 

In 1901, Maryland conference, which had been formed 
from Virginia conference in 1887, was united with Pennsylvania 
conference, Allegheny county and a part of Garrett county 
being assigned to Virginia conference. A. M. Evers had been 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


689 


one of the chief workers in the Maryland conference. C. I. B. 
Brane, C. M. Hott, J. K. Nelson, and others rendered good 
service. St. Paul's church, with its long history, remained the 
leading church. This church was long served by A. B. Statton, 
later by S. G. Ziegler, and now by F. Berry Plummer. The 
Frederick church, where the General Conference of 1901 was 
held, has interest to the entire Church. Here E. H. Hummel- 
baugh was pastor for ten years. 

The new bounds given to the conference are well suited to 
its enlarged aspirations. W. H. Washinger, the conference 
superintendent from 1902 to 1917, when he became Bishop, 
and A. B. Statton, conference superintendent from that time 
to the present, have led the conference in a larger command 
of its resources and a fuller occupancy of its territory. Prom¬ 
inent pastors and workers, who more recently went to their 
reward were C. T. Steam, D. Eberly, J. W. Kiracofe, C. W. 
Stinespring, J. P. Anthony, W. A. Dickson, J. R. Hutchison, 
and J. P. Koontz. A. R. Ayers, after long and excellent service, 
was granted a local relation in 1823. Vigorous and well-equip¬ 
ped pastors now in service will give a good account of the 
trust committed to them. The conference is well represented 
in the general work of the Church and in the foreign missionary 
field. 

A feature of the work of the Church in general, and par¬ 
ticularly in the most of the older conferences, is the building up 
of larger and stronger churches, especially in the cities. In 
this line of work, Pennsylvania conference ranks well. Balti¬ 
more has five churches. It might also count the old Otterbein 
congregation, though this congregation acknowledges rela¬ 
tionship with the conference from which it receives its pastor. 
York has six churches. The church at Chambersburg has the 
largest membership. The long effort to establish a church in 
Washington has proved a gratifying success. Other prosperous 
churches might be named. Among the laymen of the earlier 
period, J. Hoke, of Chambersburg, filled an important place. 
W. N. McFaul, of Baltimore, among the|laymen of today, 
stands ready for any call to service. Thefconference has the 
special pleasure and pride of having the Orphanage and Old 


690 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


People's Home at Quincy within its territory, and Lebanon 
Valley College within easy reach. 

The present church membership in the conference is 
26,785. 


East Pennsylvania Conference. 

The early part of the history of East Pennsylvania confer¬ 
ence is common with that of Pennsylvania conference. Even 
after the division, there was much of changing back and forth 
on the part of the preachers. Harrisburg was something of 
mutual territory, or neutral territory, as for a time no very 
serious attempt was made to establish work within its bounds. 
Even a superficial examination of the territory embraced within 
the boundaries of the conference will impress one with the large 
proportion of the German population, and the large extent to 
which the Church, earlier and later, was built up out of this 
German material. The numerous religious sects in an early 
day, many of them loosely united, afforded both advantages 
and disadvantages in building up a reliable church organization. 
In this field, also, the Evangelical Association was a zealous and 
active competitor. The slowness in forming classes has been 
mentioned. Levi Reist, whose wife was a great-granddaughter 
of Isaac Long, when asked, in 1887, why the United Brethren 
were so weak in the Isaac Long neighborhood, replied as follows: 
'The Brethren started out a little undenominational, and that 
spirit exists more or less today. At this time, there are two 
sisters living, both upwards of eighty years of age who were 
never taken up, as they say. Also, there were three other sis¬ 
ters, who died within the last ten years, who were good mem¬ 
bers, but who had never been taken up, or formally received 
into the Church. Rev. Joseph Long, a local preacher of high 
standing as a Christian, and a good United Brethren, was at 
the same time a Freiheits (liberty) man." Other cases could be 
given. Yet, we look back to the fathers of the early day with 
sincere reverence and appreciation. John Neidig, in Dauphin 
county, and the Lights and Criders, in Lebanon and Berks 
counties, and Christopher Grosh, Martin Boehm, and the 
Hersheys, in Lancaster county, make up a large part of the 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


691 


early history. At an early day, the German evangelists from 
the west, as well as from the east of the Susquehanna, and also 
from Maryland, pressed their way to the eastern border of 
Pennsylvania. We have noticed the itinerants and their fields 
of labor in 1846, the time when the Pennsylvania and the East 
Pennsylvania conferences entered on the cultivation of their 
particular fields. 

John Light, who long had been a leading preacher, died in 
1845. Rudolph, Ezekiel, and Job Light, later prominent 
preachers, were his sons. Caspar Light, named as a presiding 
elder in 1846, the brother of John, was a preacher of command¬ 
ing influence. He died in 1858. Another brother, Joseph, came 
into the ministry later. The father of this trio of ministers was 
Felix Light, whose large usefulness has had previous notice. 
John A. Sand was a preacher and pastor of large usefulness. 
He was pastor of Otterbein’s Baltimore congregation from 
1860 to 1867. For a time, he preached in the Ohio German 
conference. He died in Baltimore, September 16, 1880. Daniel 
Funkhouser was received on transfer from Virginia conference 
in 1847. He filled a large place in the subsequent work of the 
conference. His life's labor closed August 31, 1869. In 1849, 
the East Pennsylvania conference, having no suitable English- 
speaking preacher to send to a mission formed two years before 
in Philadelphia, asked the Pennsylvania conference to furnish 
the missionary, the two conferences to share equally the expense. 
A Primitive Methodist congregation had asked to be organized 
as a United Brethren congregation. J. S. Kessler was sent. 
His labors continued there for four years, when great difficulties 
came in to interrupt the work. Through close application to 
books and the requirements of his work, Mr. Kessler had be¬ 
come a most acceptable and efficient preacher and pastor. He 
was licensed to preach in 1834, and died in 1863. In 1853, the 
East Pennsylvania conference requested the Pennsylvania 
conference to send a preacher to Harrisburg, and Mr. Kessler 
accordingly was sent. His term of one year was interrupted 
greatly by bodily affliction. In 1840-41, while preaching on 
Dauphin circuit, he had preached in Harrisburg, about which 
time a commodious church edifice was purchased in that city. 


692 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The East Pennsylvania conference suffered several losses 
of territory, later recovering the same. In 1869, the East 
German conference was constituted, including “east of the 
Allegheny mountains,” three charges in the Pennsylvania con¬ 
ference, one being the Otterbein congregation in Baltimore, 
and fifteen charges in East Pennsylvania conference, selected 
with reference to the prevalent use of the German language. 
In 1877, the name of the conference was changed to the Eastern 
conference. The General Conference of 1881 gave to the East 
German conference, in addition to certain designated charges a 
large slice of the territory of East Pennsylvania conference. 
Then it was ordered “that the East Pennsylvania conference 
be attached to Pennsylvania conference under the name of 
Pennsylvania conference.” No objection or protest was offered. 
Yet the Pennsylvania and East Pennsylvania conferences met 
in “joint sessions” through the quadrennium, each conference 
separately ratifying the proceedings. The East Pennsylvania 
conference had been chartered in 1866, and the Pennsylvania 
in 1869, and each desired to continue in its corporate character. 
Delegates were elected for each conference to the General Con¬ 
ference of 1885, but the General Conference decided that, on 
technical grounds, it could not admit delegates from an East 
Pennsylvania conference. The General Conference of 1885 
gave to the East Pennsylvania conference full recognition, the 
East Pennsylvania conference, with good reason, claiming its 
identity and continuance unbroken. Yet the East German con¬ 
ference, under varying names, continued to hold a large part 
of the original territory of East Pennsylvania conference down 
to 1901, when the former was consolidated with the latter. In 
the period named above, the East German conference developed 
a large measure of strength. Some of the prominent members 
were S. Vonnieda, long connected with the Printing Establish¬ 
ment; D. Strickler, for a time editor of the Froeliche Botshafter 
and J. Doerksen, L. W. Craumer, and H. S. Gabel, who began 
his useful career in the conference and in the Church in 1882. 

The East Pennsylvania conference for at least twenty-five 
years, has been cultivating its territory steadily and more in¬ 
tensively, and growing in strength and efficiency. D. D. 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


693 


Lowery was elected conference superintendent in 1893, and 
annually thereafter until the time of his death in 1917. He was 
a leader of unusual energy and industry. Since his death, S. C. 
Enck has been the active and capable superintendent. While 
the rural churches have not been neglected, the notable growth 
has been with the city churches. Harrisburg now has six 
churches with two promising missions. Derry Street church, 
with J. A. Lyter pastor, since October 1899 has the largest 
membership, the number being 855. Other cities with strong 
and growing churches are Reading with three churches, Leba¬ 
non, with seven churches, Lancaster, with two churches, Phila¬ 
delphia with two. Some of the pastors in longer service in 
these churches are S. E. Rupp, B. F. Daugherty, H. E. Miller. 
I. E. Runk is the pastor of the college church an Annville, and 
I. M. Hershey of the well-established church at Myerstown. 
Laymen that have meant much to the conference and Lebanon 
Valley College are A. S. Kreider and J. R. Engle. Another 
layman, H. H. Baish, is the secretary of the Preachers' Pension 
Bureau. Revered ministers not referred to above, whose 
names ever will be cherished, were, with date of decease, 
Isaiah Baltzel, 1893; H. B. Dohner, 1905; G. W. M. Rigor, 
1906; and I. H. Albright, 1919. The conference has the pride 
of having located at Harrisburg a splendid bishop's parsonage 
for the East district. The present conference membership is 
26,487. 


Allegheny Conference. 

We have looked forward on the course of the Allegheny 
conference from the time of its organization in 1839. We now 
look back from our own time on its later course. It has a larger 
membership than any other conference in the Church, having 
an enrollment of 28,553. Throughout its history, it has had 
several advantages. It has retained substantially the bounda¬ 
ries given it at first. In the north, Erie conference acquired 
territory nominally belonging to it, but never occupied by it. 
The Church early became established in prosperous communi¬ 
ties and growing towns and cities on the main lines of travel, 
especially those running east and west. Ministers of good 


694 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


native abilities, who have used diligence to improve their 
talents, many of them having full advantage of the schools, 
have, under the blessing of God, earnestly devoted themselves 
to the work of building up the kingdom of Christ in the field for 
which the conference is responsible. The results gained through 
the enthusiastic ministry of the early preachers were not con¬ 
served as they might have been by the organization of classes 
and the erection of churches. Cities were entered slowly, and 
for a considerable time the impression persisted that the 
Church was not adapted to city work. In 1850, missions were 
started in Pittsburgh and Allegheny City, but neither had 
much success, and after about ten years the buildings erected 
for their use were sold. 

But the measure of success that has been attained, in the 
face of all difficulties, shows the strength of the moral and 
spiritual forces by which the work was borne onward. A 
large number of ministers raised up and becoming efficient in 
the conference have gone out to other fields. J. B. Ressler, 
received in 1842, after successful work as pastor, presiding 
elder, and agent for Mt. Pleasant College, transferred in 1873 
to Scioto conference, where he continued in like work in con¬ 
nection with the Scioto and Central Ohio conferences and 
Otterbein University. He died at Westerville, Ohio, April 27, 
1891. Mrs. Lillian Harford, president of the Women's Mis¬ 
sionary association, is a daughter of J. B. Ressler, and J. I. L. 
Ressler, who has served as pastor and presiding elder in 
Allegheny conference, is a son. 

Steps were taken in 1847 to establish an institution of 
learning. After three years of preparation, a college was 
opened at Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania, in November, 1850. 
Prospects at times were promising, but in consequence of 
inadequate financial support the college was merged with 
Otterbein University in 1858, and Allegheny conference entered 
on cooperation with that institution. From 1882 to 1891, 
however, the conference stood in cooperation with Lebanon 
Valley College. W. B. Dick and D. Speck were prominent 
ministers in the conference. L. W. Stahl is the senior member of 
the conference having become a member in 1872. In all these 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


695 


years he has been active as pastor and presiding elder, besides 
having served in the General Conference and on important 
church boards. J. H. Pershing received annual conference 
license in 1876, and filled out a long term of service as pastor 
and presiding elder, and has been the associate pastor at 
Greensburg since 1911. He has been a pioneer in a number of 
the enterprises and advances of the conference and the Church. 

The following from a “Historical Sketch of Allegheny 
Annual Conference/' by L. W. Stahl, representing the year 1913, 
states what the conference claimed for itself at that time: 

From the beginning, the Allegheny conference has been 
one of the most aggressive in the Church. The conference has 
always stood faithfully by all of the general interests of the 
Church. It has furnished a number of the leading ministers 
of the Church. Bishops William Hanby, E. B. Kephart, and 
C. J. Kephart are from the territory of our conference. E. B. 
Kephart and Dr. I. L. Kephart, who for nineteen years edited 
the Telescope, were for a number of years members of our 
conference. W. R. Funk, D.D., publisher; H. F. Shupe, D.D., 
editor Watchword; and S. S. Hough, D.D., secretary of Foreign 
Missionary society, are members of the conference. Revs. 
J. R. King, D.D., J. M. Lesher, missionaries to Africa, and 
F. A. Risley, at present a missionary in Africa, are members 
of the conference. 

Prominent in the educational work of the Church we may 
name E. B. Kephart, I. L. Kephart, C. J. Kephart, S. B. 
Allen, H. A. Thompson, D. D. DeLong, G. A. Funkhouser, 
George Keister, W. J. Zuck, A. L. DeLong, W. S. Eversole, 
L. Keister, J. T. Spangler, E. U. Hoenshel, L. F. John, and 
J. B. Ressler, the successful college agent. Other members of 
the conference have been scattered through the Church, 
among the number, George Miller, J. Wallace, S. S. Snyder, 
W. H. S. Keys, G. W. Miles Rigor, J. R. Evans, J. S. Gin- 
gerich, J. Riley, and many others that space forbids us naming. 
Mrs. Lizzie Hoffman Derrickson, founder of the Women’s 
Missionary society, and Mrs. L. R. Harford, president of the 
above society, and Mrs. F. A. Risley were reared in the Alle¬ 
gheny conference. 

A new generation of preachers are making themselves felt 
in the work of the conference. The splendid order and forward 
movement of the conference in recent years are due largely to 


696 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the leadership of J. S. Fulton, who has been the conference 
superintendent since 1907. Laymen that are deserving of 
more than mention were: John Thomas, of Johnstown, de¬ 
ceased in 1914, Solomon Keister, of Scottdale, deceased 1901, 
and John W. Ruth, of Scottdale, deceased in 1920, who greatly 
assisted through their money, as well as in other ways, in build¬ 
ing up the interests of Christ's kingdom. The stronger churches 
in the conference are the First and Second churches in Altoona, 
the First, Park Avenue and Homestead Avenue churches in 
Johnstown, and the churches at Braddock, Connellsville, 
Greensburg, Scottdale, Tyrone, and Wilkinsburg. Other 
churches rank well along with these. 

East Ohio Conference. 

We have followed the history of the Muskingum conference 
from the time of its first session in 1818 to about 1845. We shall 
follow it still for a time under the old name. This conference, 
in 1858, gave up the northern part of its territory, which, 
together with the “north half of Mercer county, and all of 
Crawford, Erie, and Warren counties, Pennsylvania, with the 
privilege of extending the work into the unoccupied territory 
of New York," was made to constitute a separate annual con¬ 
ference district called the Erie. 

In 1861, the name Western Reserve was given to the Ohio 
part of this territory, together with parts of five bordering 
counties in Pennsylvania. A new conference district was 
formed between the east boundary of the Western Reserve 
district and a new West boundary of the Allegheny conference, 
to which the name Erie was given, this conference also including 
the State of New York. In 1877, the Erie conference was given 
the Pennsylvania territory of the Western Reserve conference. 
In 1886, the Western Reserve conference, as thus described, 
and the Muskingum conference, in harmony with an authori¬ 
zation by the General Conference, were united, rather reunited, 
under the name East Ohio conference. 

There are those yet living to whom the name Muskingum 
is dear. The preachers of outstanding ability and effectiveness 
in the middle period of the Muskingum conference were Alex- 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


697 


ander Biddle and J. Weaver. Of the latter, an account has 
been given. The former came into the conference in 1831, and 
moved into the territory of the Sandusky conference in 1847, 
but he always regarded the period from 1837 to 1847, most of 
which time he served as presiding elder, as the golden years of 
his ministry. As early as 1832 he held successful meetings in 
Beaver county, Pennsylvania. He was a man of large mold 
physically and mentally, and was characterized by truly 
prophetic fervor. At a camp-meeting in Stark county, a mob 
appeared to break up the meeting. Mr. Biddle, rising in his 
massive form, prayed, “Lord God Almighty, let thy power 
come." The leader of the mob fell to the ground crying for 
mercy, while his followers fled. In one year, one thousand 
members were added to the Church on his district, largely 
through his direct efforts. His work was carried forward amid 
the greatest difficulties and hardships, and with the most 
meager financial support. 

In 1847, by a vote of 26 against, to 9 for, the conference 
refused to enter on cooperation with Otterbein University, but 
the next year repented and unanimously reversed its action. 
The members of the conference showed their real fear, however, 
by adopting a resolution asking the General Conference to 
place in the Discipline a rule forbidding our institutions of 
learning becoming “theological institutions." In 1848, it was 
made a rule of the conference, “that all those who use tobacco 
be seated on the gentlemen's side of the house." In the various 
annual conferences at this time it was usual to pass a resolution 
against the use of tobacco in the place of meeting. 

In 1849, the conference passed a resolution asking the 
Allegheny conference to permit the Muskingum conference to 
occupy a portion of country bordering on Lake Erie “not being 
occupied by the Allegheny conference, a portion of it being 
already successfully occupied by the Muskingum annual 
conference." 

In 1852, the conference asked the General Conference to 
divide the territory of the conference. The General Conference 
complied with the request. The Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne, and 
Chicago railroad was made the dividing line. The new confer- 


698 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


ence, called the Erie, included, as said above, bordering terri¬ 
tory in Pennsylvania. The new conference thus had the larger 
territory, and also a slight majority of ministers. 

At the division of the conference in 1853, the Muskingum 
conference started out with 2,044 members, and, at the ses¬ 
sion in 1885, the number had increased to 4,634, not a great 
increase for thirty-two years. B. F. Booth, who came into the 
conference in 1864, was an able preacher and executive. He 
served twelve years as presiding elder. In 1889, he was elected 
by the General Conference secretary of the Missionary society, 
but died, March 6, 1893. He had represented his conference 
in five General Conferences, and had served on important 
boards of the Church. 

The Muskingum and Western Reserve conferences met in 
joint session at Massillon, Ohio, September 8, 1886, and com¬ 
pleted a union of the conferences. W. B. Leggett and J. G. 
Baldwin, the secretaries wrote: “The long-talked-of union of 
Muskingum and Western Reserve conferences, which was the 
chief object of the joint session, was most grandly and harmoni¬ 
ously consummated.” The Western Reserve section, which 
started out in 1853 with 1,340 members, reported 2,923 mem¬ 
bers in 1885. The figures for 1853, however, included members 
east of the Ohio State line. 

We must now reach back and bring forward the history of 
the Western Reserve conference, including notice of Erie con¬ 
ference territory for the time when this territory was connected 
with the Western Reserve territory under the name of Erie 
conference. If we could say that the Western Reserve confer¬ 
ence was formed in 1853 by division from the Muskingum 
conference, and the Erie conference was formed in 1861 by 
division from the Western Reserve conference, convenience 
would be well served. We are to remember that the Western 
Reserve of Connecticut means that the territory of the Western 
Reserve conference was occupied largely by New England 
people, who were not the most ready element for the United 
Brethren preachers to work among, a considerable number of 
them having their own church partialities. However, on the 
south of the Reserve, belonging to Western Reserve conference, 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


699 


there was a narrow bordering strip where the Germans were 
more numerous. Yet to this trying field the United Brethren 
evangelists went undaunted. Many of these people, the 
English of the English, were won to Christ and the Church, 
some of them becoming recruits to the ministerial force. In 
1847, J. Weaver, afterward Bishop, had for his first charge 
Lake Erie Mission, being two hundred miles around, with 
seventeen appointments and twenty-three members. J. 
Goodin had travelled the charge the year before. At an ap¬ 
pointment seven miles from Cleveland, an infidel, a large man 
and a justice of the peace, rose and said that there should be no 
more preaching in the community, and entered on a dictatorial 
harangue. A little Irishman became excited and retaliated. 
At this point, the Irishman's wife sprang to her feet and said: 
'‘Faith, Davy, you may as well die for an old shape as for a 
lamb. Just give him a little." Whereupon Davy felled him 
to the floor, and dragged him out of the house by the heels. 

Already in 1850 there was an Ohio City mission, Ohio 
City being a suburb of Cleveland. A small church was built 
here, used sometimes by the English and sometimes by the 
Germans. In 1851, a New York mission was recognized. 

The two sections of the Muskingum conference met in 
joint session on October 13, 1853. The scope of the work in 
the Erie (or Western Reserve) conference is indicated by the 
names of a few of the charges. Among these we find, Ohio 
City mission, the New York mission, to be divided into three 
missions, Erie circuit, Oil Creek, Sugar Grove, and Vanango 
appointments. A few of the prominent charter members may 
be named. A. Brazee, bom in Connecticut, became a member 
of the Muskingum conference in 1849. As pastor, presiding 
elder, and delegate to four General Conferences, he rendered 
large service to the conference and Church. Eli Slutts likewise 
was prominent as a pastor and presiding elder, and everywhere 
left his mark for good. He died in 1863. The name of William 
Cadman will be reserved for notice later. 

In the eight years of the existence of the Erie conference as 
constituted at this time, a strong, aggressive spirit was shown. 
The Church membership increased from less than two thousand 


700 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


to more than four thousand. At the session of 1860, a resolution 
was passed asking the General Conference to divide the terri¬ 
tory of the conference, making the Ohio State line the line of 
division. The General Conference, at its session in 1861, 
responded by dividing the conference, but gave to the Western 
Reserve conference parts of five counties in Pennsylvania bor¬ 
dering on the Ohio line. This strip, however, was given to the 
new Erie conference in 1877. 

The two sections of the conference met in joint session in 
1861. The Western Reserve conference started out with 
much hope and purpose. It had a number of good leaders, 
and the rank and file in the ministry were earnest and self- 
sacrificing. For a number of years there were moderate annual 
gains, but later there was an actual decline in the number of 
members of the Church. In 1870, the conference undertook 
the establishment of an institution of learning called the Smith- 
ville high school. At first, it seemed to prosper, but soon the 
matter of its support became a distressing burden, and in 1880 
the school was given up. With this statement of the wanderings 
and struggles, the successes and the disappointments of the 
Western Reserve conference, we return to take up and follow 
the more hopeful history of the newly christened East Ohio 
conference. 

Should not the shock of two bodies coming together 
generate some heat? Yet, in this case, it was not so much like 
the heat of two comets colliding as it was the generous warmth 
of co-workers coming into close fellowship, with a great open 
field before them for cultivation. To know the low point at 
which the conference had to begin its work, it is necessary only 
to notice that at the first session of the united conference in 
1886, missionary appropriations were made as follows: Akron, 
$150; Canton, $50; Alliance, $50; New Philadelphia, $50; 
Marietta, $50; Penfield, $50. There were thirty-nine itinerant 
and forty-three local preachers, and 8,166 members. In 1923, 
the membership had a little more than doubled, being 16,500. 
Akron now has four churches, with a combined membership 
of 1,454. Canton has two churches, the First Church having 
a membership of 2,353, with a total enrollment in the Sunday- 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


701 


school of 3,558. Other churches, both city and rural, are in a 
growing condition. Within the conference bounds, there are 
thirty-two county seats. Some of the leading ministers, with 
the time of their death, were the following: D. W. Sprinkle, 
1908; U. M. Roby, 1914; D. Kosht, 1914; J. G. Baldwin, 1915. 
The last named was born in New England, December 15, 1824. 
had the distinction of being baptized by Lyman Beecher, 
began preaching in 1848, was connected with the Muskingum, 
Erie, and Western Reserve conferences, thus connecting all the 
sections of the East Ohio conference. R. Watson, one of the 
last to fall in the ranks, entered the ministry in 1856, and, with 
a record of unbroken service for fifty-six years, passed to his 
reward December 5, 1923. J. S. Kendall, the present confer¬ 
ence superintendent, has held a prominent place as a pastor 
and a religious leader. As secretary of the stewardship com¬ 
mittee and of the Board of Administration, he has had much 
to do in promoting the general work of the Church. The fact 
that he came all of the way from Catholicism may explain in 
part his zeal and industry. C. Whitney, emeritus home mis¬ 
sionary secretary, and P. M. Camp, the present missionary 
secretary, are members of the East Ohio conference. Ira D. 
Warner, W. W. Williamson, J. E. Comer, Sager Tryon, and 
Mrs. Ellen R. King, are among the active pastors in the 
conference. The United Brethren Church has had in its fel¬ 
lowship no layman larger hearted or more open-handed than 
A. A. Moore, of Barberton, Ohio, who went to his reward 
August 26, 1918. He was a large benefactor of education, 
missions, and every good cause. Jay M. Cogan, of Canton, 
Ohio, has for years been the superintendent of the largest 
Sunday-school in the Church, and also a member of important 
Church boards. 


Erie Conference. 

The beginnings leading up to the new construction of Erie 
conference in 1861 have been noted. Its proper territorial 
bounds were gained when, in 1877, the Ohio-Pennsylvania 
line was made its western boundary. With a generous portion of 


702 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


northeastern Ohio and all of the State of New York in which to 
expand, it can make no complaint of want of territory. 

The Erie conference and the New Erie conference, as it was 
called, met in joint session September 18, 1861. The following 
names of the fields of labor of the new conference give a good 
idea of the territory occupied: Harbor Creek, Amity, French 
Creek, Oil Creek, Pleasantville, Oakland, Rockland, Sugar 
Lake, Sugar Grove, Pine Grove, Allegheny, Cattaraugus, 
Harmony, Westfield, Findley Lake, Bear Lake, Chautauqua, 
Clear Creek, Erie county, West Niagara, Niagara county, 
Orleans, Genesee, and Bennington. New York was occupied 
before the adjacent parts of Pennsylvania were occupied. 
The sons of Christian Smith, one of the early preachers, and 
J. G. Erb, a preacher, were the center for a United Brethren 
community about seven miles from Buffalo, when Jacob Erb 
visited the community in 1825, and Bishop Newcomer held 
meetings there in 1826. In 1861, William Cadman was one of 
the three presiding elders, and I. Bennehoff, N. R. Luce, and 
J. G. Erb were among those assigned to charges. In 1862, 
when the first separate session was held, W. Cadman, L. L. 
Hager, and I. Bennehoff were made the presiding elders. At 
this time, the Church membership numbered 1,490, and within 
the conference territory there were eight or nine small churches. 
In the Pennsylvania territory, along the Ohio line given to 
Erie conference in 1877, there were several small churches. 
In the stretch of time from 1862 to the present, the lives and 
labors of four or five of the preachers of the conference furnish 
significant living links, reaching back, indeed, into the earlier 
period. William Cadman received license to preach in the 
Muskingum conference in 1851. From the first, his field was 
in New York and Pennsylvania. He had all of the necessary 
qualities of a pioneer preacher. He had strong magnetic 
qualities and proved capacity to endure. His valiant career 
was brought to a close January 11, 1900. L. L. Hager received 
license to preach in 1856, and was instant and continuous in 
service as a pastor and presiding elder as long as his strength 
permitted. He died October 6, 1919. He was a poet as well 
as a gifted preacher. He left a contribution of three volumes 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


703 


of poems. J. Hill long was recognized as the Nestor of the con¬ 
ference. He was admitted to the old Erie conference in 1857, 
and his labors were continued until his death, which occurred 
June 3,1905. Thirty-four times he was elected presiding elder, 
and was elected the first Church Erection secretary, and nine 
times he was a delegate to the General Conference. He was 
a man of noble spirit, a strong preacher, and a good adminis¬ 
trator. I. Bennehoff received license to preach in 1861, and as 
preacher and presiding elder long bore the burden and heat of 
the day. With his working day past, he now lives in retire¬ 
ment, honored by his brethren. It would hardly be right to 
speak of R. J. White as a prophet of the old time, and yet he was 
received into the Western Reserve conference in 1873. Begin¬ 
ning in 1884, he served as the principal of Erie conference 
Seminary until near the time when that school was closed. 
Since that time, he has served as pastor and presiding elder in 
the conference. An increasing number of young and well- 
equipped men now are coming to occupy the important posts 
in the conference. Russell S. Showers has been the conference 
superintendent since 1916. Wise foresight and close attention 
to detail, in other words, human engineering in the superin¬ 
tendency, will reach and hold the desired results. With 
prosperous rural churches, and growing churches in Buffalo, 
Erie, Maysville, Bradford, and Jamestown, a large prospect is 
open to the conference. 

Miami Conference. 

We now look back on the course of the Miami conference 
to the middle forties of the last century, our forward look 
having included notice to that time. In the minutes of the 
Miami conference for 1923, the session of that year is named as 
the 114th, the numbering dating from 1810, the time of the 
first session. However, two sessions were held in 1848, but no 
session was held in 1811. If we should call the two half-sessions 
of 1812, thus held to accommodate different parts of the con¬ 
ference, as one session, the reckoning would be right. 

Miami conference occupies the southwest part of Ohio, 
including ten and one-half of the eighty-eight counties of the 


704 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


State. The formation of the Maumee or Auglaize conference, 
in 1853, gave the territory north of Piqua and Greenville to the 
new conference, including Jay, Wells, and Adams counties and 
other territory in Indiana. The territory given to the new 
conference included most of the charges of the North district. 
Said district was made up of the following charges: Newton, 
Scioto, Wapakoneta, St. Marys, Flat Rock, Maumee, Bluffton, 
Wabash, Mississinewa, Auglaize, Rush Creek. A few classes 
belonging to Sandusky conference also were included. Some 
territory in Indiana continued for a time to be occupied by the 
Miami conference. In 1901, when the Auglaize conference was 
dissolved, the north boundary of Miami conference was ex¬ 
tended to Sidney and the north line of Darke county. 

In looking into the manuscript record of the Miami con¬ 
ference for 1844, one is struck with the print-like writing of 
W. R. Rhinehart. He was the principal secretary for eight 
years. Between the time of his transfer to the conference in 
1842 to his death in 1861, he served as pastor and as presiding 
elder. In the list of those present in 1844 are the names of the 
three active Bishops, Henry Kumler, Sr., Henry Kumler, Jr., 
and John Coons, besides Joseph Hoffman, retired Bishop. 
Here, too, we meet the names of the Bonebrakes and Kemps. 
In this period, the spread and increase of the work in the 
Miami, Indiana, and Wabash conferences was almost phenom¬ 
enal. In 1849, the net increase reported for the Miami con¬ 
ference was 1,488, which was large compared with the number 
of ministers and church members. A loose sheet of paper 
belonging to this period gives the number of preachers on vari¬ 
ous circuits, Germantown having sixteen, Lewisburg eleven, 
Sidney seven, Greenville six, Bluffton four, and so forth. 
But few of these were members of the annual conference, 
and yet they all were expected to be active in preaching. The 
first recorded report of charges, itinerants, and number of 
members is that for 1846. The report names twenty charges, 
and the same number of itinerants, and 4,112 members. The 
next year, the number of members is given as 3,760. The 
attempt to give statistics was abandoned for a time. The first 
statistics that can be depended on with any degree of confidence 



DR. LEWIS DAVIS 



MR. AND MRS. J. M. BONEBRAKE 












ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, BONEBRAKE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 

N. 


DORMITORY, BONEBRAKE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 




BIBLE TRAINING SCHOOL, SAN FERNANDO, P. I. 










































ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


705 


are those of 1856, which were used by the Bishops in making 
their statistical report to the General Conference of 1857, this 
being the first attempt made to give statistics for the entire 
denomination. The number of members in Miami conference 
in 1856 was 3,068. 

In the face of the reported rapid progress for a time, how 
are we to account for the small number at this time, and for 
some time afterward? There was a loss of about 1,500 to the 
Auglaize conference. The fact that the preachers largely were 
German, and that the German population was sparse and 
rapidly passing over to the use of the English language, must 
be taken into account. The German secretary was the chief 
secretary down to 1837, and the minutes are given in German 
as well as in English down to and including the session of 1843. 
Probably, the actual use of the English language was consid¬ 
erably in advance of what this showing would indicate. The 
greatest difficulty was that the Church leaders and the mem¬ 
bers in general did not know how to build up and conserve. 
In other churches, there was a membership traditionally 
attached to a historic church. With the United Brethren, the 
membership and the preachers had little training or tradition 
that held them to the Church, or that enabled them to build 
safely and surely. From choice, or from a feeling of disquali¬ 
fication, the preachers and people avoided the towns, or made 
feeble and unwise efforts at city work. It required half a 
century for the United Brethren Church to acquire the wisdom 
and discipline necessary for successful and sustained work, 
whether in the city or in the country. It is not too late, as 
many examples are proving, to add to the zeal of the past the 
matured wisdom that shall retrieve much of the ill success of 
the past and buy up many opportunities now for the first 
presenting themselves. 

Of many of the earlier charges, only names of creeks, and 
of towns that were not themselves occupied, remain. De¬ 
tached churches continued here and there from the larger 
circuits, and strong churches sprang up in many of the towns 
and cities that had remained untouched. Zion church, near 
North Bend, already spoken of, remains. Miltonville, where 


706 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the General Conference of 1853 was held, once a strong church, 
is no longer on the conference map. The Germantown church, 
representing Twin Creek circuit, has remained through all the 
years a reliable and prosperous church. A few particulars may 
be given regarding hte Germantown church, some of which were 
typical of other early churches, but others not so. It will be 
remembered that probably the first United Brethren class 
north of the Ohio River was formed at Andrew Zeller's, near 
Germantown. A church building was erected in Germantown 
in 1829. Up to this time, the “meeting-house” joined to 
Andrew Zeller’s dwelling met ordinary requirements. The 
following contract for janitor service shows how seriously the 
church conducted its affairs: 

Germantown, Ohio, January 6, 1845. 

Article of agreement made and entered into between 
George Sharts, Ezra Kemp, and Jacob Eckart, trustees of the 
United Brethren Church at Germantown, Ohio, of the one 
part, and Mathew Frank, of the other, to wit: 

The above named trustees agree to pay or cause to be 
paid unto the said M. Frank, fifteen dollars for his services in 
the said church—namely, ringing the bell, cleaning the house, 
lighting the candles, and tending to them during worship, 
cutting the wood, and tending to other necessary duties in the 
meeting house during worship and at other times for one year, 
commencing on the first day of January, 1845, and ending on 
the first of January, 1846. The said Frank is, however, not 
required to ring the bell, etc., for any other churches except 
the United Brethren and New Lites except on the following 
conditions: When an application is made for the house he 
shall be permitted to charge forty cents for a meeting when 
there is wood and candles wanted, thirty cents when there is 
wood wanted and no candles, or candles and no wood, or 
twenty cents where there is neither wood or candles wanted, 
and in all cases said Frank is to have half of the above charges, 
and the trustees the other half. The said Frank agrees to 
comply with all of the above conditions for one year, as stated. 
In witness whereof, we annex our hands and seals the day and 
year above named. 

The said Frank is not permitted to allow the following 
denominations to have the house, viz., the Universalists, 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 707 

Millerites, Mormonites, Hell Redemptionists, Calvinists, and 
Catholics. 

George Sharts (seal) 

Ezra Kemp (seal) 

Jacob Eckart (seal) 

Attest: Abia Zeller Mathew Frank (seal) 

It will be noticed that the building was provided with a 
bell. The General Conference of 1837 met in this church, and 
also the General Conference of 1849. Just prior to the General 
Conference of 1849, a large new bell, cast at Cincinnati, was 
installed. After the old church building was sold and a new 
church erected, the bell was secured and placed in the old 
Bonebrake Seminary building, and now it sends out its full 
tones from the new administration building of Bonebrake 
Seminary. 

As quite typical of the efforts of the Church at large to 
establish itself in towns and cities, the experience of the first 
undertakings in Cincinnati and Dayton may be given. In 
1833, Joseph Hoffman was sent to establish a congregation in 
Cincinnati. A church building was partially completed, but 
the enterprise was almost immediately given up. In 1837, the 
effort was renewed, and some of the strongest preachers of the 
conference were stationed there; but in 1844 various interrup¬ 
tions came. In 1845, a German mission had its beginning, 
though German preaching dated back to 1842. Another begin¬ 
ning for an English congregation was made in 1848. A new 
church was dedicated in 1850. W. J. Shuey was pastor from 
1851 to 1854, and again from 1856 to 1859. In 1857, the Gen¬ 
eral Conference was held in Cincinnati. J. A. Sand then was 
the pastor of the German congregation. Later, the church 
building of the English congregation was sold, and a new church 
built at the corner of Clinton and Baymiller streets. Difficul¬ 
ties and distractions persisted in coming up, and in 1875 the 
church property passed over to the German United Brethren. 
Former church sites were on Fulton, and on Mound and Rich¬ 
mond streets. A second German church was established in the 
eastern part of the city. By the extension of the city limits, 
thus including what was a rural church, and by the well- 


708 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


planned establishment of churches in the growing suburbs of 
the city, Cincinnati now has five English United Brethren 
churches, and several more well within the range of the city. 

The establishment of the Church in Dayton was long de¬ 
layed. The hopeful beginning, about 1836, in the house of 
Joseph Hoffman has been referred to. After the fading out of 
this attempt, there appeared in the Religious Telescope of 
November 11, 1840, the notice, “We have been informed by a 
brother from Dayton that there is a small class of United 
Brethren in that place, who meet regularly once a week for 
religious worship, and that they are entirely destitute of 
preaching from the ministers of our Church.” Sarah Ann 
Sexton, a young woman that had become a member of a United 
Brethren class west of Dayton, became an assistant public 
schoolteacher in Dayton. In her zeal, she paid two dollars a 
day for the use of a little Disciples' church on North Main 
street for a series of meetings, and secured the help of Francis 
Whitcom, the United Brethren presiding elder, in holding the 
meeting that resulted in the forming of a United Brethren class 
of thirteen members in the year 1840. From 1841 to 1843 there 
was a Dayton circuit, having in 1843 twelve appointments, but 
about two years later the name Dayton disappeared from the 
conference minutes. In 1847, a lot on Wayne avenue was bought 
for $300, on which was built a parsonage for Springfield circuit, 
which extended to the south as well as to the north of Dayton. 
In the fall of 1848, Robert Norris and W. J. Shuey, the preachers 
on Springfield circuit, formed a little class of six members, 
the beginning of what came to be First United Brethren Church. 
Two years before, Miami Chapel class, then south of Dayton, 
was organized in connection with Stillwater circuit, John Dodds 
and wife of this class being two of the six members later fur¬ 
nishing the beginning of the First Church. It is not a small 
stride from these early beginnings to the situation at the 
present time, with eighteen churches in Dayton, having a 
recorded membership of 7,395. 

The rural work in the Miami conference has contributed to 
the building up of town and city churches. Small subscriptions 
were taken up all over the conference to help build the first 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


709 


church house for the First Church. The rural churches have 
poured their members into the town and city churches, but 
they are themselves given standing and support by the success 
of the town and city churches. The Miami conference has been 
helped by the presence of the Publishing House within its 
bounds, and by the large number of the ministers of the con¬ 
ference that have received their training in Bonebrake Theolo¬ 
gical Seminary. For many years, the gains in the conference 
came slowly, yet the conference always has been characterized 
by the spirit of progress. The first missionaries to Africa went 
out from this conference, and here the Women’s Missionary 
association had its beginning. Lay delegation and pro rata 
representation here had early advocates. Its small and com¬ 
pact territory is favorable for conventions and team work in 
the interest of all forms of Church work. If mention should 
be made of particular ministers, the names of those might be 
given that the conference itself has nominated for honor and 
responsibility by making them leaders in the work of the con¬ 
ference. William McKee, C. J. Burkert, and J. L. Swain were 
the wheelhorses in the presiding eldership. G. P. Macklin did 
good service in the same relation. C. W. Kurtz was one year 
presiding elder and then served eleven years as the first con¬ 
ference superintendent over the whole conference. He was 
followed by A. R. Clippinger, whom the General Conference 
has called into the larger field as one of the Bishops of the 
Church. J. H. Dutton became his successor in the superin¬ 
tendency. The sainted Bishop Mathews and others already 
have been noticed. The names of H. Garst, W. J. Shuey and 
D. Berger have a church-wide significance. We should not 
fail to name among the laymen D. L. Rike, John Dodds, and 
S. E. Kumler, who by gifts to the enterprises of the Church, 
and by their cooperation and aid in other ways, contributed 
much to the up- building of the Church. 

Southeast Ohio Conference. 

We can imagine the feeling of surprise on the part of 
Bishop Edwards, Bishop Hanby, Dr. L. Davis, and Joshua 
Montgomery if the name above given should fall on their ear 


710 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


instead of the well-worn name Scioto. While there was a 
change of name in 1901, the conference territory now is sub¬ 
stantially what it was at first. The territory lost in 1878, 
when the Central Ohio conference was formed, was practically 
regained when that conference was dissolved in 1901. The re¬ 
gained territory brought with it Columbus, Westerville, 
Newark and other places at the north, to the great advantage 
of the conference. In 1901, there was a gain in church member¬ 
ship of about 4,000, largely due to the major share of the 5,276 
members of Central Ohio conference falling to the Southeast 
Ohio conference. The conference occupies about a third of the 
State of Ohio. The church membership in 1849 was 4,450; in 
1863, 6,669; and in 1873, 8,036. The territory was very favor¬ 
able, and the times likewise, for the rural work in which the 
Church chiefly was engaged. But the Church was beginning 
to turn more and more to work in the towns and cities. In the 
Scioto minutes for 1867, this item appears: '‘On motion, 
Columbus City mission was recognized as a charge within this 
conference.” The following year, the Sandusky conference 
agreed to share equally with the Scioto conference in the pay¬ 
ment for a church that had been bought, and the salary of a 
pastor, the pastors to be appointed every two years by the one 
conference and the next two years by the other conference. 
C. Briggs, of Sandusky conference, served as pastor for the 
year 1868-69. In 1869, W. B. Davis of the Scioto conference, 
reported that he had formed a mission in the northwestern part 
of Columbus, called the Olive Branch mission. In 1873, W. B. 
Davis reported a Mt. Zion United Brethren church organized 
in Columbus. In 1869, a hopeful German mission was in opera¬ 
tion here. These four church organizations, and another one 
later, all had their church buildings on which heavy debts were 
resting, and all came to an untimely end. In seeking to main¬ 
tain them, the conference had agents in the field at large cost 
and with small results. In 1871, the Sandusky conference was 
glad to surrender all that it had invested and be released from 
further responsibility. The church building bought for 
“First church,” was a good building in the central part of 
Columbus, but, when, after the effort in behalf of the organiza- 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


711 


tion ceased, and the church property was sold, the amount 
received failed to pay the liabilities by more than $1,500. 
Every one of the enterprises at the beginning had laudable 
and hopeful elements, but came to grief through miscalcula¬ 
tion, bad management, and lack of sufficient liberality on the 
part of those that should have given aid. The worst feature of 
all was the discouraging effect that these failures had on the 
work of the conference both in a material and spiritual way. A 
brighter picture will present itself in connection with more 
recent efforts to establish the Church in the capital of the 
Buckeye State. 

The death of Joshua Montgomery, in 1861, and of William 
McDaniel, in 1889, severed largely the chain that bound the 
later to the earlier years. If anything more were lacking in 
separating the earlier from the later, it would be supplied in the 
loss of the twelve members, Dr. L. Davis among the number, 
marked irregularly withdrawn in 1889. The lives and labors, 
however, of G. W. Deaver, deceased 1911; J. H. Dickson, 
deceased 1912, and others of like character, bridged over many 
changes. In the period of the separate existence of twenty- 
two years, the Central Ohio conference increased in church 
membership from 3,598 to 5,276, and the Scioto conference 
from 6,522 to 9,669. This was not much better than holding 
their own. And yet let no one say that it means nothing to 
carry on the work and make up for losses, many of them 
inevitable. 

But the coming together of a large section of the Central 
Ohio conference and the Scioto conference in 1901 was both a 
sign and a means of better days. Among the ministers that 
toiled in the Central Ohio conference and have gone to their 
reward were J. A. Crayton, A. Orr, George Geiger, J. B. Ressler, 
and D. Bonebrake. After 1901, the Church membership 
gradually increased from 13,534 until it reached the high point 
of 18,118 in 1916, and then declined until in 1919 it stood at 
15,638. From this point, it has risen until in 1923 it stands at 
19,515. From 1909 to 1919, R. A. Hitt was the industrious and 
efficient superintendent over the entire conference. Since that 
time J. H. Harris has been the engineer at the wheel. There is 


712 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


perhaps no other annual conference in which the different 
forms of church work are carried forward with fuller coordina¬ 
tion and precision than in the Southeast Ohio conference. The 
service that is rendered is paid for largely by those that receive 
its benefits, or those that put down their money as their con¬ 
tribution to results that are fulfilling before their eyes. Perhaps 
in no other annual conference is there a grading of the efficiency 
of charges and pastors, according to a definite number of points, 
the principles and the results being published in the conference 
minutes. 

After the account of the discouraging beginnings, some¬ 
thing should be said of present conditions. Columbus now has 
seven United Brethren churches with church buildings, and a 
working membership that would be a credit to any denomina¬ 
tion. For many years, A. J. Wagner has been the dean of the 
staff of pastors working in Columbus. Other cities having 
two or more churches are Chillicothe, Newark, and Ports¬ 
mouth. The young church at Corning is fast taking high rank. 
The church with the largest membership is that of Logan. The 
membership of the church in Westerville is nearly as large as 
that of Logan. The Westerville church, for its faithfulness 
and liberality, especially in connection with Otterbein College, 
with which it has been so closely associated, well deserves the 
esteem of the entire Church. E. E. Burtner, for ten years the 
honored pastor of the congregation, was taken away by death 
September 27, 1923. E. S. Neuding, of Circleville, is one of the 
prominent laymen of the conference. John Hulitt, of Hillsboro, 
was a large contributor to the institutions of the Church. 

Sandusky Conference. 

Sandusky conference occupies, in the shape of a square 
and circle combined, the northwest corner of the State of Ohio. 
The area is not far from one fourth of that of the State. The 
progress of the Church in this territory has not been much 
different from that of the Church in adjacent territory. First, 
there was the period of heroic adventure, then a period of 
trial and transition, and finally a period of self-finding, and of 
advance by means of “weapons of precision.” The territory 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


713 


includes the city of Toledo, and is dotted evenly with prosperous 
urban centers of varying populations. Rural communities are 
no less favorable. If in this territory the Church does not 
make good, it will not be the fault of the Lord or of the territory. 
The field occupied extended at one time over into Indiana 
and up into Michigan. In 1845, it lost the most of its Indiana 
territory by the forming of the St. Joseph conference, and, in 
1853, it lost its Michigan territory by the forming of the Mich¬ 
igan conference. In 1861, it lost the Maumee district in Ohio, 
with twenty-four preachers and 2,463 members, the North 
Ohio conference, at first called the Michigan conference, and 
perhaps also the Auglaize conference, being gainers thereby. 
All territory in Ohio thus lost was regained in 1901, when the 
two conferences last named were dissolved. At the same time, 
it gained also in territory and members at the south, by the 
partition of the Central Ohio conference. 

In 1849, the Church membership of Sandusky conference 
was 3,590, no territory in Michigan being cultivated at this 
time. But this year Stephen Lee, who the year before had 
made some incursions into Michigan, became the first mission¬ 
ary into that State. His labors, carried forward under great 
difficulties, were blessed greatly. In 1851, the membership was 
reported as 5,097. In this year, Jacob Baulus, who is spoken of 
as the father of the Sandusky conference, closed his earthly 
course. At the session of the following year, the foreign mis¬ 
sionary work of the Church, under the inspiration of J. C. 
Bright, already referred to, received its first strong impulse. In 
1853, the territory in Michigan, with 424 members and fifteen 
preachers, was constituted a conference. In 1857, the con¬ 
ference attempted the almost presumptuous thing of planting 
a mission in New England, sending at first L. Moore and S. 
Lindsey as missionaries, these being succeeded later by seven 
other strong preachers. Though a Massachusetts conference 
was formed, the enterprise had to be abandoned. New England 
ways and United Brethren ways did not correspond. In 1869, 
the church membership was 6,929. The cooperation of the 
Sandusky conference with the Scioto conference in seeking to 
establish a church in Columbus has been referred to. 


714 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


From 1869 to 1890, the Church membership was practically 
stationary, in the latter year the number of members being 
7,550. Yet, in this period, strong and earnest men were en¬ 
gaged in the work of the conference, among whom I. Crouse, 
Alvin Rose, T. J. Harbaugh, and D. R. Miller may be named; 
and, of course, we should not forget Henry Spayth, A. Biddle, 
J. Bever, M. Long, William Mathers, and J. Davis coming 
down from the earlier period. A great burden and distraction 
resulted from the attempt to maintain an academy at Fostoria 
from 1879 to 1894. 

Alexander Biddle, named above, should not be passed 
with a mere mention. His work in the Muskingum conference 
already has had mention. In 1853, he came within one vote of 
being elected Bishop, L. Davis receiving the one vote necessary 
to elect. In native talent, in preaching and executive ability, 
in fine temper and bearing, and in spiritual endowments, he had 
the qualities that would have well befitted the Bishop’s office. 
In 1848, he was received on transfer from Muskingum confer¬ 
ence. He continued in active service as pastor and presiding 
elder until near the close of his life. He died at his home in 
Galion, February 1, 1899, in his eighty-ninth year. In his 
eighty-seventh year, he wrote: “In the quiet of my lonely 
home, my soul feasts on the riches of divine grace. The time of 
the sunset has come, but its tints are those of a golden autumn 
day. The sun is going down without a cloud, and, as the earthly 
is fading out of sight, the heavenly breaks on my vision, and I 
long to be at home in the bright eternal day which has no 
sunset.” 

In 1900, the Church membership of Sandusky conference 
was 10,902. The following year, the membership was in¬ 
creased to 17,630, chiefly by the accessions received by the 
inclusion of the Ohio territory of the Auglaize and North Ohio 
conferences, and by territory from the Central Ohio conference. 
For some time, four presiding elders superintended the work 
of the conference, chosen from the different parts of the terri¬ 
tory included. Serving in this capacity were W. S. Sage, 
H. Doty, J. W. Lilly, A. W. Ballinger, W. Z. Roberts, and W. O. 
Fries. From 1908 to 1913, A. C. Siddall was superintendent 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


715 


over the entire conference territory, and from that time until 
the present the conference has entrusted this office of great 
responsibilities and possibilities to M. R. Ballinger. With 
some ups and downs, the church membership has increased 
steadily until it now stands at 24,051. The various forms of 
church work are coordinated closely. The conference is strongly 
evangelistic. J. W. Hicks, deceased 1913, had large success as 
an evangelist within the conference and beyond. J. H. Patter¬ 
son has been a useful factor in all forms of church work in this 
and other conferences. In Toledo where previous to 1893 the 
Church was not represented, there are now six prosperous 
churches. Other well-established churches are at Bowling 
Green, Findlay, Fostoria, Galion, Hicksville, Lima, Bucyrus, 
Marion, and Willard, with others ranking well with these. 

Probably annual conferences are not more anxious to be 
forgotten than are persons. If those annual conferences that 
have disappeared could speak, they doubtless would have a 
story to tell of high resolves, souls saved, saints crowned, and, 
at last, immolation on the altar of a wider service. 

Auglaize conference, at first called Maumee, partly in 
Ohio and partly in Indiana, was formed mostly from Miami 
conference, and only slightly from Sandusky, but the Ohio 
part of the territory came principally, in 1901, within the 
bounds of the Sandusky conference. The Auglaize conference 
began in 1853, with a Church membership of 1,500, and when 
dissolved, in 1901, had a membership of 7,023. The early 
preachers had to battle with the swamps and forests as well 
as with hardened sinners. Of the charter members, A. Shindle- 
decker was a picturesque character and a great soul-winner, 
and John Hill was a solid builder. In 1856, William McKee, 
long general missionary treasurer, became a member of the 
conference. The Daniel Miller home, from which came five 
preachers, prominent in different parts of the Church, was 
about six miles east of Wapakoneta. The names of William, 
Charles W., Daniel, George, and Merit are widely known. 
J. L. Luttrell, the author of a history of the Auglaize confer¬ 
ence, abounding in incident, became a member in 1857. He 
was a leading member in the conference for many years. He 


716 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


died June 3, 1893. In opposition to slavery and in support 
of the war for the preservation of the Union, United Brethren 
preachers everywhere were outspoken and aggressive. A few 
preachers in the Auglaize conference were not so much in 
favor of slavery as they were opposed to abolition, and to bold 
utterances from the pulpit and ringing conference resolutions 
against slavery. In 1863, four of these preachers, the veteran 
Shindledecker among them, proceeded to organize a Reformed 
United Brethren Church. The name later was changed to the 
Republican United Brethren Church. Another name was the 
Evangelical United Brethren Association. These “seceders,” 
as they were called, became a factor in the formation of what 
is known as the Christian Union. Those taking part in this 
movement were expelled promptly. This brings up the fact 
that the names of a large proportion of the preachers received 
into this conference, and to a somewhat smaller extent into 
other conferences, were marked in the conference records as 
erased or expelled. Men of all conditions, gathered into the 
Church through great revival meetings, hastily were given 
license to preach, but all moral shortcomings were dealt with 
rigidly. In the policy and practice of the annual conferences, 
religious fervency and the most exacting moral uprightness 
went together. A large number of useful preachers, in addi¬ 
tion to those that went into the Sandusky conference went 
from the Auglaize conference into other parts of the Church. 

The North Ohio conference, first called the Michigan 
conference, formed from the original Michigan conference and 
the Sandusky and St. Joseph conferences in 1861, made its 
contribution of the northwest corner of Ohio to the Sandusky 
conference in 1901. The territory for the original Michigan 
conference was not at all the same. The real North Ohio 
conference began at its first session in 1862, with 2,535 mem¬ 
bers, and closed its separate history in 1901, with 4,380 mem¬ 
bers. This conference suffered severely in the separation from 
the Church taking place in 1889, the number of members 
reported for this year being 3,295, while the number for the 
previous year was 6,516. The Auglaize conference suffered 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


717 


from the same cause, but not in the same proportion. In both 
of these conferences, there was strong radical leadership. 

The entire Church membership for the State of Ohio 
numbers 82,176. 


Indiana Conference. 

We are now to take up our survey of the Hoosier State, 
beginning with about 1845, the time when the General Confer¬ 
ence authorized the division of the original Indiana conference 
into the Indiana, and White River conferences, and also con¬ 
stituted the St. Joseph conference. The conference at the 
south retained the original name. It is now divided from the 
White River conference by an east and west line beginning on 
the line between Ohio and Indiana at the southeast corner of 
Franklin county, and extending west through Greensburg and 
Columbus to the Illinois line at the northwest corner of Sullivan 
county, Columbus belonging to White River conference. Be¬ 
fore 1909, that part of the present conference territory west of 
Bloomington belonged to the Lower Wabash conference, but 
in 1909 the three conferences in Indiana became strictly co¬ 
extensive with the State. 

The original Indiana conference met at Mt. Pleasant 
meeting house, Bartholomew county, February 20, 1846, and 
made all of the arrangements for the division of the conference 
and for the work of the coming year. 

L. S. Chittenden was made presiding elder for the Indiana 
conference. The names of the charges in this conference were 
New Market, Charlestown, Jasper, Tanner's Creek, Corydon, 
Laugherty, New Albany, Newbern and Washington. Two 
of the itinerants appointed to charges who afterward became 
prominent were, T. J. Connor and B. Abbott. 

L. S. Chittenden was a man of large physical and mental 
mold. He was born in Switzerland county, Indiana, August 5, 
1819. He began his ministry in 1839, by traveling White 
Water circuit, and united with Indiana conference in 1840. 
He was sent to Washington circuit, embracing parts of Harri¬ 
son, Crawford, Orange, Martin, and Washington counties. 
He received 175 personsjnto the^Church, and was given $100 


718 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


as salary. The next year, he was appointed to the same charge, 
and added appointments in Franklin, Fayette, Wayne, and 
Union counties. In 1842, he was sent to Corydon circuit, 
which included parts of Floyd, Harrison, and Crawford coun¬ 
ties. This year he received seven hundred persons into the 
Church, and was given $150 salary. For many years, he con¬ 
tinued to serve with constant success as circuit preacher and 
presiding elder. In 1853, he served as a supply for the church 
in Dayton, Ohio, and the next year he had charge of the church 
in Cincinnati. In 1860, he traveled Abington circuit, in White 
River conference. In 1861, he was sent to Indianapolis mission 
station. In 1862, the mission was made a self-sustaining 
station, and he was returned as pastor, but shortly afterward 
he was commissioned chaplain of the 67th regiment of Indiana 
volunteers. In the army, he continued his evangelistic preach¬ 
ing, which resulted in hundreds of conversions. He served as 
college agent and as pastor at Hartsville, Indiana, and at West- 
field, Illinois. Five times he was a delegate in the General 
Conference. He died June 13, 1892. 

The first separate session of the Indiana conference was 
held at Mt. Lebanon meeting house, in Harrison county, 
January 7, 1847. Bishop Russel not being present, J. Lopp 
was made bishop pro tern. D. Shuck was made secretary. 

The serious bias of the conference was indicated by the 
following: 4 ‘Resolved, That, when any matter may appear 
against a brother, the complainant tell the fault in his presence, 
but, if he has good to say, he shall wait until he withdraws.” 

John Lopp, who presided, had been ordained by Bishop 
Kumler, Sr., and at the present session of the conference he 
officiated in ordaining D. Shuck, who afterward became a 
Bishop. This fact has a pleasant interest to all that desire 
to trace all ordination of elders in the Church through a line 
of Bishops back to Otterbein. Mr. Shuck's mother was a 
sister of John Lopp. It is impossible to give too much credit 
to Mr. Shuck for his deep spiritual aims, and wide interest and 
industry in the work of the Church. Discouraged by his older 
brethren, he yet persisted in seeking further preparation for 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 719 

his work at the State University at Bloomington, preaching 
meanwhile. 

An item taken from the conference minutes of 1843 may 
rest us for a moment, and at the same time show that not all 
church troubles belong to the present times. The following 
item relates to the old Franklin church, said to be the oldest 
church in the conference yet standing: “Voted that, whereas, 
Bro. Simon Fry, a trustee of the Franklin meeting house, has 
assumed sole control, and refused to open the same for certain 
respectable ministers of our Church, and set himself inflexibly 
against Sabbath schools, temperance, and anti-slavery preach¬ 
ing, that the Bishop shall instruct Brother Fry immediately, 
to be hereafter perfectly peaceable, behave himself submissively, 
let our ministers preach against intemperance and slavery, 
yield to the majority of the class, and give up the key to the 
sexton they have chosen.” 

While not specified as belonging at the time to the Indiana 
conference district, Kentucky was recognized as an open field 
for the conference, inasmuch as some work had been carried 
on therein for an indefinite time, with Ohio and Indiana as a 
base. At this session, J. Blair was made presiding elder of 
Kentucky district, and A. Davis was appointed preacher for 
Columbia circuit, about one hundred miles south of the Ohio 
River. In 1848 there was a session of the conference in Janu¬ 
ary, and another in September. At the latter, T. J. Connor 
was transferred to White River conference. In 1853, he be¬ 
came the leader in a United Brethren colony to Oregon. In 
1850, the session was held in the Liberty meeting house, in 
Adair county, Kentucky. The long horseback ride is not 
mentioned as a hardship. At the session in 1851, J. Scamma- 
horn was received on transfer from the Miami conference. 
He was long an efficient and honored member of the conference. 
At this session, J. Denham, who had done so much for the 
spread of the Church in Indiana and in all the West, was 
received from the Wabash conference. In 1860, serious 
charges were made against him, and his name was erased from 
the conference roll. 


720 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


In 1849, the conference adopted a resolution accepting 
responsibility for a seminary located at Hartsville, Bartholo¬ 
mew county. The charter presented the next year for approval 
was declared unsatisfactory by the conference. Later, the 
charter was amended, and both the Indiana and the White 
River conferences, at their sessions in 1851, committed them¬ 
selves to the maintenance, at the location named, of an institu¬ 
tion of learning, soon afterward called Hartsville University. 
Much that was good and inspiring developed in connection 
with this institution, even though the sequel was disappointing. 
It is difficult to secure statistics for this period, but a statement 
from D. Shuck, the secretary, gives the Church membership 
in 1851 as 3,089, an increase of 750 compared with the number 
given the year before. No regular attempt to give statistics 
was made before 1856. The minutes of 1852 reveal some dis¬ 
couragement. C. Lynn, one of the preachers, asked to with¬ 
draw from the Church on three grounds, stated thus: “1. Our 
Church will not sustain her minister; 2. For not receiving con¬ 
verted men who are members of (secret) temperance societies; 
3. The war resolution.” In 1849, the General Conference 
adopted a resolution that was interpreted as opposing war in 
any and all circumstances. The Indiana conference voted to 
ask the General Conference to modify or rescind the resolution, 
Lynn voting with the majority. At later sessions, the In¬ 
diana conference modified and finally rescinded its resolution. 
This seems to have displeased Lynn. But the first two objec¬ 
tions, especially, went to the heart of the matter. Good 
preachers were ready to serve, but they must have means to 
take care of their families. The preachers themselves were 
much to blame for the condition that existed. They had 
preached a free gospel in such a way that the people did not 
feel that a real service was required of them. J. M. Dosh, 
A. L. Best, and I. K. Haskins, received in 1852, were valuable 
accessions. 

A noticeable feature in connection with the session of 1853 
was the movement to enlarge the work in Kentucky. In 
addition to the Columbia circuit, previously served, appoint¬ 
ments were made to Green River and Macedonia missions in 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


721 


Kentucky. At this session, David Shuck, a brother of Daniel 
Shuck, was received. 

The life and labor of J. Breden furnished one of the living 
links between the earlier and the later period. He became a 
member of the conference in 1854. He served many years 
in the pastorate and nineteen years as presiding elder. He 
died November 14, 1906, at the age of nearly eighty. J. T. 
Hobson was one of the most diligent and efficient ministers in 
the conference for many years. He was the author of a volume 
entitled, The Lincoln Year Book, and of other literature on 
the life of Lincoln. He died December 27, 1923. Many 
preachers, and Church members likewise, brought into the 
Church in the territory of Indiana conference, have gone forth 
to strengthen and build up the Church within the bounds of 
other conferences. From the Ward family at Pleasant Hill, 
near Odon, four sons and a daughter have gone into the minis¬ 
try and missionary work. Henry Ward, one of the number 
holds a prominent place in educational work. The three sons 
of S. L. Todd, one of the present active and efficient members 
of the conference, constitute, with their father, a notable 
ministerial family. Belonging also to this same cluster was a 
daughter, Myrtle Todd, who died a few years ago as the pas¬ 
tor of the church at San Diego, California. In all, including 
the families named, the Pleasant Hill congregation has sent out 
seventeen ministers and three missionaries. 

In different parts of southern Indiana, the United Breth¬ 
ren Church holds the ground as the leading church. Yet, it is 
established in less than half a dozen of the county seats within 
its territory. With men and money furnished, many of the 
towns and cities could be occupied quickly, thus conserving 
and strengthening the results reached in the rural sections. 
But, notwithstanding all of the handicaps, comparative suc¬ 
cess has been reached. In 1870, the church membership 
numbered 5,468; in 1900, 10,043; and, in 1924, 15,481. 
The conference did not suffer perceptible loss following the 
revision acts of 1889, and its gains through receiving new 
territory in 1909 were less than a thousand members. Those 
that in recent years served as_ presiding elder or conference 


722 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


superintendent for five years or longer were, J. H. Walls, 
L. L. Schoonover, W. E. Snyder, and J. W. Settle. The 
present superintendent is W. H. Lutes. It should be added 
that a few years ago a hopeful work was opened up in Louis¬ 
ville, Kentucky, in a tabernacle, the gift of Howard Cadle, of 
Indianapolis, in memory of his mother. 

White River Conference. 

The present territory of White River conference is an 
east and west belt across the middle of the State of Indiana, 
bounded on the south by the Indiana conference, and on the 
north for the most part by the Wabash River and the north 
line of Vermillion county, but in the center the line zigzagging 
to the south in such a way as to give four or five counties south 
of the Wabash River to the St. Joseph conference. The strict 
reading of the minutes of the General Conference of 1845 
would have given to all of the Indiana conferences an extension 
of their territory, at that time, to the Ohio-Indiana line, but 
this was not the actual case in respect either to the White 
River or St. Joseph conference. Wells county and surround¬ 
ing counties were recognized as belonging to Miami conference, 
and in 1853 went with the north part of Miami conference 
territory to form the Auglaize conference. Until 1909, the 
territory of the Upper Wabash and Lower Wabash conferences 
cut far into what is now the complete belt of the White River 
conference. 

The present territory, as thus described, was penetrated 
by United Brethren missionaries at the time when the Miami 
conference was the sole conference for western Ohio and for 
Indiana. We have noted the important beginnings made on 
the Wabash, near Lafayette. The extension from the south, 
through the work of the original Indiana conference, will be 
seen when the charges with which the White River conference 
started out are named. A name first proposed for the confer¬ 
ence was the North Indiana conference. 

The White River conference convened in its first annual 
session at Washington, now Greensfork, Wayne county, 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


723 


January 18, 1847, Bishop J. Russel presiding. D. Stover was 
elected chairman, and W. W. Richardson, secretary. Addi¬ 
tional members present were, S. Andrews, W. S. Stewart, 
C. W. Witt, J. T. Vardaman, C. McCarty, M. M. McCrow, 
J. H. Stover, J. H. King, J. Perkins, S. Rutledge, E. B. Crouse- 
horn, J. Manning, W. Witt, S. Kurtz, J. S. Wall, J. Baumgard¬ 
ner. Men already prominent, noted absent, were J. Slonecker, 
J. A. Ball, J. Morgan, George Muth, A. Hanway, M. M. 
Hook, and G. Ruebush. The Church membership is said to 
have numbered 1860 at this time. In answer to the question 
as to whether the preachers had received their dues, the entry 
made was, “Not all in money but in grace.” It was at this 
session that Charity Opheral, as already noticed, was virtually 
given license to preach. An account is given elsewhere of the 
steps by which women attained full ministerial rights. It may 
be added here that the Miami conference, at its session in 1850, 
made the following minute: “That this conference recommend 
that Sisters Phoebe Benton and Hannah Yingling be received 
as helpmates in the gospel, under the care of the quarterly 
conference, until action is had by the General Conference in 
the premises.” So White River conference was ahead, both 
in time and the extent of its action. The attitude in regard 
to war was indicated by the following: “Resolved, that P. C. 
Parker has been guilty of a public immorality by volunteering 
to go into the Mexican War.” The charges to which appoint¬ 
ments were made were, Liberty circuit, Andersonville circuit, 
Franklin circuit, Indianapolis circuit, Fall Creek circuit, Stony 
Creek circuit, Dublin circuit, Ripcreek circuit, Granville cir¬ 
cuit, Marion circuit, Kokomo mission. J. T. Vardaman and 
W. W. Richardson were made the presiding elders. The next 
conference met at White chapel, Madison county, but met 
again in the fall of the same year at Kingdom chapel, in Shelby 
county. Among members received were, W. B. Witt, J. R. 
Brown, and T. J. Connor on his transfer. The conference 
appointed a committee to counsel with other conferences in 
regard to establishing an institution of learning. 

In 1854, the conference met in the United Brethren church 
at Indianapolis. Indianapolis charge was designated as a 


724 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


mission in 1851, with J. T. Vardaman preacher in charge. The 
church seems to have been built in that year, as the next year 
subscriptions were solicited to pay a debt resting on it. It is 
said that a brick church was erected at the corner of Ohio and 
New Jersey streets, in 1855. The statistics for this year gave 
the Church membership at the beginning of the year as 2,196; 
received, 472; lost, 184. The minutes for this period show 
careful planning, spiritual earnestness, and a firm moral tone. 
Milton Wright was received as a member in 1851. Much at¬ 
tention was given to the Benevolent fund, on which the preach¬ 
ers depended for a pittance when their working days would 
be over, and to the Home Mission fund, which was depended 
on to supplement the small salaries of the home missionaries. 
Each conference had its book agents, and all of the preachers 
were expected to look after the circulation of Christian litera¬ 
ture. The growth of all of the interests of the conference was 
steady and healthful. The preachers are described as 4 ‘brusque, 
resourceful, determined characters, and inured to the toil and 
hardships of pioneer life.” Through the years, an increased 
interest was shown in Hartsville College, which was supported 
jointly by the Indiana, White River and St. Joseph conferences. 

There came to be a growing tension between a minority 
that desired a modification, or even a rescinding of the church 
rule on secret societies, and a preponderating majority on the 
other side. When the General Conference, in 1869, instead of 
modifying that rule, made it stricter, a convention was called 
in Indianapolis, in June, 1869, which declared the rule im¬ 
practical and injurious. At the next session of the conference, 
some of the participants in the convention were expelled and 
others withdrew. Another convention was held, and a begin¬ 
ning was made in organizing a “Liberal United Brethren 
Church.” At the first, this consisted mainly of the disorgan¬ 
ized church in Indianapolis, and two small country churches. 
The liberal organization soon went to pieces, and its following 
went over mainly to the Methodist church. Blame for the 
defection and the breaking down of the Indianapolis congre¬ 
gation was placed on William Kendrick, one of the old ministers 
of the conference. Renewed efforts were made in Indianapolis 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


725 


in 1880. The policy of exclusion and repression, in connection 
with the secrecy rule, goes far to explain later conditions in the 
White River conference and in the Church. 

Up to 1888, the conference had a slow but steady growth, 
the Church membership in that year being 7,457. The next 
year the membership was reduced to 5,840, the loss being 
brought about by withdrawals in consequence of the revision 
acts of 1889. In this and some other cases, the statistics 
given at the conference sessions differ slightly from the figures 
given in the Church Year Book, which usually are followed. 
The conference itself had declared at its session in 1885 that it 
would “approve and cooperate with any plan which may be 
agreed upon for the settlement of the present difficulties dis¬ 
turbing the Church, if such plan is unquestionably in harmony 
with constitutional methods” and that it would “abide by 
the result of the same.” Consequently, following the separation, 
the conference set to work to repair breaches and regain losses. 
In the place of Milton Wright, H. Floyd, and other leaders of 
the past, new leaders were put forward, and with great hope 
and unanimity a new era was entered on. A. C. Wilmore and 
F. M. Moore were elected presiding elders. John Morgan, a 
preacher in the Church for sixty-eight years, always faithful 
and loyal to the Church, died August 1, 1889. He was the 
last survivor of those coming from the Miami conference, with 
the exception of one preacher that in early times withdrew from 
the Church. 

From 1889, the church membership increased steadily 
until in 1909 it stood at 12,854. The dissolution of the Aug¬ 
laize conference, in 1901, brought to the conference ten minis¬ 
ters and 1,200 members. In 1909, the partition of the Upper 
Wabash and Lower Wabash conferences brought to the confer¬ 
ence thirty-three preachers and 6,800 members. At the same 
time, by a readjustment of boundaries the conference lost to 
the St. Joseph conference 1,000 members, and to the Indiana 
conference two hundred members. The additional territory 
received opened new possibilities for the future. Principally 
because of the changes noted, the membership mounted in 


726 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


1910 to 18,693. The increase has gone on until the member¬ 
ship in 1923 stands at 25,097. In the recent period, ministers 
that have served as presiding elder or conference superin¬ 
tendent three years or more were J. T. Roberts, M. F. Dawson, 
J. A. Hawkins, H. S. James, and J. E. Shannon. J. B. Parsons 
is the present conference superintendent. An enterprise, 
described elsewhere, that has drawn greatly on the resolution 
and resources of the conference, was the founding of Indiana 
Central College, at Indianapolis, in 1902. The progress of 
the conference may be explained in part by the fact that for 
forty-four years the ministers of the conference have met in 
an annual “theological institute.” 

The success in taking up town and city work, in addition 
to the rural work, with which White River conference started, 
is at once a surprise and a gratification. Six churches each 
are reported for Indianapolis and Marion, and for Terre 
Haute, seven. The following are the names of some of the 
larger and stronger churches: Anderson, Columbus, Craw- 
fordsville, Hartford City, Indianapolis First, Indianapolis 
Brookside, Indianapolis University Heights, Marion First, 
Marion Swayzee Street, Muncie Riverside, Newcastle, Rich¬ 
mond, Saratoga, Terre Haute First, Terra Haute Barbour 
Avenue, Terre Haute Breden Memorial. A glance over the 
field takes notice of S. Wertz, of Columbus, and G. A. Lambert, 
of Anderson, as outstanding laymen. It should be said that 
the introduction of lay delegation for the annual and General 
Conferences, along with various responsibilities committed to 
laymen, has had much to do with the advances of recent years. 

St. Joseph Conference. 

Conference boundaries, as assigned in 1909, give to St. 
Joseph conference all of the State of Indiana north of the 
territory of the White River conference. Prior to that time, 
the Upper Wabash conference occupied a large tract of the 
western part of this area, and at an early period the Sandusky 
and the North Ohio conferences occupied a large section of 
the eastern part. When the conference was authorized in 
1845, the territory included was described as “that part of the 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


727 


State of Indiana north of the Wabash, Indiana, and Miami 
conferences, also that part of the State of Michigan north of 
the State of Indiana. At this time, the White River confer¬ 
ence had not yet been set off from the Indiana conference. 
While the description would give all of the northeast part of 
Indiana to the St. Joseph conference, this full extent of terri¬ 
tory was not secured until 1901, when the North Ohio confer¬ 
ence was dissolved. 

There was much of romance in the occupying of this 
territory by the United Brethren missionaries. The settling 
in Fountain county, and also in the region north of the Wabash, 
of a United Brethren colony in 1826 has received notice. 
In 1838, John Hoobler, a member of this colony, was given 
license to preach by the Miami conference. Not long after¬ 
ward, he formed three classes. One was in the community 
where lived Jacob, John, and David Bonebrake, who belonged 
to the Bonebrake family of Preble county, Ohio. Another 
was formed at the house of a family from Butler county, Ohio. 
The third was at Simon Brown's, on Lopp's prairie. Members 
of the United Brethren Church came from different parts of 
the country. Some came from Harrison county, Indiana. 
George Brown, a preacher from Pennsylvania, settled in the 
community. Soon a class was formed twelve miles west of 
Lafayette, and another, nine miles east of Lafayette. Thus, 
the planting of the Church in this part of the country was 
largely without direct effort. Miami conference, however, 
took note of conditions and, in 1828, sent Jacob Mahan as a 
missionary to this field. He soon died, but not until he had 
witnessed blessings on his labors. The next year, John Den¬ 
ham was sent to the Wabash. He was a strong man, and he 
greatly built up the work of the Church in Indiana, and became 
the pioneer missionary in Illinois. As the Indiana conference 
was set off in 1829, and held its first session in 1830, it devolved 
on this new conference to send missionaries to the Wabash 
region. Accordingly, J. Hoobler, was appointed in 1830 to 
Coal Creek circuit, having its center in Fountain county, and 
Josiah Davis was appointed to Wea circuit, having its center 
in Tippecanoe county. In 1831, James Griffith was sent to 


728 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Coal Creek circuit, and J. Hoobler to Wea circuit. In 1832, 
Frederick Kenoyer was sent to Coal Creek circuit, and James 
Griffith was sent to Wea circuit, with Francis Whitcom as 
presiding elder over these fields. In this year, William Davis, 
widely renowned later, was assigned to St. Joseph mission. 
He made the long journey from southern Indiana on horse¬ 
back. His field covered four counties in Indiana and two in 
Michigan. In 1833, Elijah Cook was assigned to the Coal 
Creek charge, and James Davis to the Wea charge, and 
Josiah Davis, a brother of William Davis, was sent to the 
St. Joseph mission, J. Griffith being the presiding elder. In 
1834, Elijah Cook was sent to St. Joseph mission, and James 
Griffith to Wea circuit. Wabash conference, at its formation 
in 1835, took charge of all of the work in northern Indiana, and 
in Michigan north of Indiana. The labors of the preachers of 
the Wabash conference were carried forward with such vigor 
that there soon came to be two presiding-elder districts in 
northern Indiana and southern Michigan. These were the 
basis for the St. Joseph conference, as constituted in 1845. 
It may be well to state that, in 1842, Henry Kumler, Jr., with 
J. Thomas, George Miller, and a few helpers that he picked 
up, did a marvelous work in the Maumee country, on both 
sides of the Ohio-Indiana line, the results passing at first to the 
Sandusky conference. The Sandusky conference, however, did 
not begin work in Michigan north of Ohio until 1849. 

These were the beginnings, then, with which the St. 
Joseph conferences started out. The St. Joseph conference 
met in its first annual session at North Manchester, Indiana, 
September 18, 1845. As Bishop Russel was not present, 
J. M. Hershey was elected bishop pro tern. The stated mem¬ 
bers of the conference were J. M. Hershey, Bryant Fanning, 
John Surran, Henry Bear, Constant Kidder, T. J. Babcoke, 
John Fetterhoff, E. H. Lamb, B. S. Clevenger, Joseph Terrel, 
John Aumick, Richard Patton, Jonathan Thomas, Eli Hoover, 
John Mast, Edward Johnson, John Lamb, William J. Burtch, 
and J. B. Slight. William Davis and Francis Whitcom were 
present as visitors. The larger number of the ministers came 
from the Wabash conference, but some came from other con- 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


729 


ferences. A constitution was adopted for a home missionary 
society. The circuits to which appointments were made were 
the following: Tippecanoe, Warsaw, Huntington, Logansport, 
Wild Cat, Berrien, Buffalo, Elkhart, St. Joseph, Pleasant 
Plain. Yellow River and Anglo missions also are named. 
E. H. Lamb and J. M. Hershey were elected presiding elders. 
The conference raised a protest against ministers from every¬ 
where, without certificates, applying for admittance into the 
conference. For the years immediately following, the terri¬ 
tory first occupied was cultivated more closely. J. M. Her¬ 
shey, E. H. Lamb, J. Surran, J. B. Slight, J. Thomas, and 
J. Fetterhoff were the prominent preachers. H. A. Snep was 
received in 1857. 

September 5, 1851, the conference again met in North 
Manchester. The secretary speaks of the gratitude felt for 
the kind providence that "accompanied the progress of the 
little St. Joseph conference during its existence for the last six 
years.” For the conference he said: “Her borders are spread¬ 
ing from year to year. Her strength in the ministry is increas¬ 
ing not only in numbers, but in holy living.” The conference 
statistics showed the following: members found, 1,196; re¬ 
ceived, 679; lost, 245; remaining, 1,630. How unreliable the 
statistics were is indicated by the numbers given the following 
year: members, 2,360; increase, 317. In 1854, the conference 
declared itself aggrieved because the Sandusky conference 
declined to yield the territory in the northeastern part of Ohio, 
which the conference claimed by virtue of the boundary named 
by the General Conference. The General Conference, in 
1853, had made the line between Sandusky and St. Joseph 
conferences to commence five miles east of Roanoke, thence 
in a straight line to Columbia, Whitley county, thence due 
north to the line of Whitley and Noble counties, thence on the 
east line to the southeast line of Noble county, thence north 
on the line of Noble and DeKalb counties to the center of said 
counties, thence east to the State line between Ohio and In¬ 
diana, thence north to the State of Michigan. St. Joseph 
conference thus was entitled to go to the State line for the 
breadth of a county and a half in the corner of Indiana. In 


730 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


1853, St. Joseph conference was permitted to hold that part 
of Michigan lying south of a line extending from White Pigeon 
northwesterly to Lake Michigan. The effort in these years 
was to open new missions, to change missions into self-sustain¬ 
ing circuits, and to establish stations. A station usually had 
three or four appointments closely connected. In 1855, St. 
Joseph and Wabash conferences agreed to cooperate in building 
a church at Lafayette. In 1857, J. Fetterhoff complained that 
he had spent much time collecting money for a church at 
Lafayette, had put in $2,000 of his own money, and that the 
church was yet unfinished, though it was far enough along for 
the holding of services. In 1863, the church burned down, just 
before the time when it was to be used for the session of the 
annual conference. In 1861, the General Conference gave 
toward forming what came to be the North Ohio conference, 
the northeast corner of Indiana, as marked off by the Maumee 
river to Fort Wayne, and a line drawn to Columbus, and thence 
north to the Michigan line. With these vexatious lines in 
mind, we can appreciate the later simplifying of boundaries. 

In 1900, St. Joseph conference had a Church membership 
of 10,083, which was increased the following year to 12,365, 
due chiefly to the fact that the conference realized its aspira¬ 
tions in securing in 1901 the full extension of its territory to 
the Ohio State line. At the same time, it lost its prized terri¬ 
tory in Michigan. At this time, and in 1909, by a change in 
the division line between the St. Joseph and White River con¬ 
ferences, it gained in territory and membership. By this 
time, the conference passed safely the stage of children's dis¬ 
eases, and was ready for a substantial and maintained advance. 
The present church membership in the conference is 21,915. 

Ministers that were drafted from the conference for other 
service were N. Castle, elected Bishop in 1877, and W. M. Bell, 
elected general missionary secretary in 1893, and Bishop in 
1905. It might be proper to state that for a considerable 
period the subject of sanctification much occupied the atten¬ 
tion of leading ministers and Church members in this confer¬ 
ence. The known sincerity and saintliness of Bishop Castle 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


731 


and other like-minded ministers kept the good elements to the 
front, and warded off the extravagances that sometimes 
accompany such movements. Bishop Castle's book, The 
Exalted Life, gives wise distinctions and cautions, but at the 
same time abounds in incentive. In recent times, when so 
much depends on the conference superintendent, or the pre¬ 
siding elder as formerly termed, we naturally look toward 
those whom the conferences have placed in these responsible 
positions. J. F. Bartmess, F. Thomas, and G. Sickafoose 
were chosen presiding elders at different times. Among those 
that have been entrusted with the helm for a term of years, 
J. Simons, J. E. Grimes, J. W. Lake, A. M. Cummins, and 
J. A. Groves may be named. R. P. Burton, L. 0. Oyler, 
W. E. Stanley, J. W. Lower, D. B. Kessinger, and J. A. Cum¬ 
mins also were singled out for this service. And perhaps others 
were too valuable in the pastorate to be spared from that form 
of service. R. J. Parrett, a successful general evangelist, was 
a member of this conference (deceased 1918). C. S. Parker 
and W. F. Parker had a prominent place in the work of the 
conference. Some of the stronger city churches are those of 
Elkhart, Fort Wayne (Calvary), Huntington, Kokomo, and 
South Bend. 

Michigan Conference. 

The original Michigan conference was formed as a mission 
conference in 1853, and stood as a self-supporting conference 
from 1857 to 1861. It included all of the State of Michigan 
except an angle at the southwest corner below a line drawn 
northwesterly from White Pigeon to Lake Michigan, a section 
in this part of the State belonging to St. Joseph conference 
until 1901, and then becoming a part of Michigan conference. 
Until that time, it does not come into our reckoning. The 
original Michigan conference was opened up by missionaries 
of the Sandusky conference, though the southwestern part of 
Michigan was reached first by missionaries from the Indiana 
and Wabash conferences. It is probably true, as stated by 
Lawrence, that some societies were formed by ministers or 
members of Sandusky conference in adjacent Michigan terri¬ 
tory as early as 1840. 


732 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Stephen Lee, whose life is given in the first volume of 
“Our Heroes,” was sent, in 1849, by the Sandusky conference 
as the first missionary into Michigan. He was bom in Canada. 
He was converted and given license to exhort in connection 
with the Methodist church. At the age of twenty-one, he 
came to Ohio and engaged in teaching school. In connection 
with his teaching, he was instrumental in promoting an ex¬ 
tensive revival. In 1848, he joined Sandusky conference, and 
the next year was sent into Michigan with a $50 appropriation 
to back him. Though he took a superannuated relation in 
1854, he shared for sixteen years in the general work of the 
conference. The presiding elders for the first few years were, 
J. Nixon and J. Martin. In no part of the Church was early 
missionary effort more enthusiastic or successful than in 
Michigan. In consequence, a mission conference was con¬ 
stituted in Michigan in 1853, bounded or unbounded as indi¬ 
cated above. The Michigan mission conference met near 
Eaton Rapids, Michigan, October 3, 1854, Bishop L. Davis, 
presiding. John Lawrence was elected chairman, and W. S. 
Titus, secretary. Members present were, J. Lawrence, J. Nix¬ 
on, A. Bowser, G. W. Miller, J. Martin, G. C. Fox, C. B. 
Waldo, W. S. Kenard, H. Rathbun, W. S. Titus, and Stephen 
Lee. Three members were noted as absent. The charges to 
which appointments were made were: Lansing mission, Pine 
Lake mission, Grand River mission, Barry mission, Eaton 
circuit, Ingham mission, Jackson mission, Adrian mission 
station, Hillsdale mission, Kalamazoo mission, Genesee mis¬ 
sion, Kent mission, the last two to be supplied by the presiding 
elder. The reason so many missions were recognized was that 
Sandusky conference had made an appropriation to Michigan 
conference of $400 which, added to what came from the Board 
of Missions, was a great encouragement and help. The ab¬ 
stract of statistics showed: Appointments, 82; classes, 62; 
members found, 562; members received, 302; expelled, 44; 
died, 2; removed, 56; withdrawn, 5; present number, 757. In 
1857, the membership had grown to 2,757. The conference 
continued to grow and prosper. In 1861, the General Con¬ 
ference joined territory in Indiana and Ohio to the two southern 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


733 


tiers of counties in Michigan, and gave to this district the 
name Michigan conference. It should rather have been called 
at the first, as later it came to be called, the North Ohio con¬ 
ference. That would have left the name Michigan conference, 
instead of the name North Michigan conference, to be given 
to the territory north of the two southern tiers of counties in 
Michigan. In 1869, the name Michigan was given to the 
territory north of the Michigan Central railroad, but the 
numbering of the sessions of the Michigan conference was 
made to begin with 1862, instead of with 1854, thus breaking 
the continuity in the development of the conference. 

The North Michigan mission conference was organized 
October 10, 1862, at Matherton, Ionia county, Michigan. 
No Bishop being present, J. Nixon was elected Bishop pro tern, 
D. Strayer, chairman, and G. C. Fox, secretary. Other mem¬ 
bers present were, W. S. Titus, J. B. Parmelee, B. Hamp, 
J. Jacobs, W. H. Stone, J. Rider, J. Berry, A. Lee, G. S. Lake, 
J. Myers, L. Warner, and H. Rathbun. H. T. Barnaby was 
one of the eleven members noted as absent. The number of 
Church members reported was 780. The number of charges 
was seventeen. W. S. Titus was made a general missionary. 
Rapid progress was made, and in 1877 a new conference, on 
the north, was set off called the Saginaw conference. Both 
conferences lost heavily in the separation that took place in 
1889, and in 1893 the two Michigan conferences were united. 
In 1901, the church membership numbered 2,883, at which 
time the conference bounds included all of the State of Michi¬ 
gan. The present membership is 3,574. In recent years, a 
good beginning or advancement has been made in the establish¬ 
ment of congregations at Benton Harbor, Berrien Springs, 
Grand Rapids, Hastings, and three in Detroit. Some of the 
ministers that nobly have devoted themselves, in more recent 
times, to the building up of the work of the Church and the 
kingdom of Christ in and through the Michigan conference 
have been W. N. Breidenstine, C. P. Hopkins, S. E. Shull, A. 
A. Keiser and C. E. Pilgrim, the present conference superinten¬ 
dent. Among the laymen, Fred P. Geib, of Detroit, stands as 
a loyal supporter of the interests of the conference and church. 


734 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Illinois Conference. 

Illinois conference is coextensive with the State of Illinois. 
Where at one time there were four conferences and large parts 
of two others, there is now but one. The division into small 
conferences reached its limit. Broader and more settled modes 
of administration, and better means of travel have facilitated 
the uniform and more efficient work of the Church in wider 
areas. 

The boundary report, adopted by the General Conference 
of 1845, gives the following description of the territory of the 
Illinois conference then authorized: “All of the northwestern 
part of the State of Illinois, embracing Iroquois circuit and 
Wisconsin Territory.” The description was meant to dis¬ 
tinguish the new conference from the Wabash conference, 
which should retain the territory before belonging to it in 
Indiana and southwestern Illinois. The definition was suf¬ 
ficiently indefinite and elastic to accommodate itself to new 
conditions. 

But let us notice the history prior to the crystallization 
of the new conference. Religion seemed to be entirely unaware 
of any hindering state lines. The Indiana-Illinois state line 
everywhere was passed by the immigrant and the missionary. 
The earliest United Brethren to make their way into Illinois 
will remain unknown. The members of the United Brethren 
colony settling on the Upper Wabash in 1826 spread over into 
Illinois. In the year 1830-31, John Denham, not to be con¬ 
fused with Joshua Dunham, received $100, and Joshua Wil¬ 
liams, $15.50 from the Indiana conference for service on an 
“Illinois charge/’ This is the first account that we have of 
any settled work in Illinois The field was quite surely in 
McClean county, where some United Brethren families from 
the territory of Scioto conference had settled. In 1831-32, 
the work was called Bloomington, with John Denham as 
preacher. In 1832-33, the work still was called Bloomington, 
with J. Denham and J. Eckels as preachers. In 1833, the work 
bore the name Mackinaw, with J. Spradling as preacher. 
In 1831, Henry Evinger, a pioneer preacher in Miami confer¬ 
ence, moved to Coles county, in the vicinity of Westfield. In 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


735 


1832, he started a Sunday-school, and, in 1843, Otterbein 
church was built. The members of the church in this com¬ 
munity were connected later with the church of Westfield. 
Mrs. Hadley, the missionary, was the granddaughter of Henry 
Evinger. He died in 1835. 

The Wabash conference, which held its first session in 
1835, with all the West as its territory, was carried forward 
by a mighty surge in the decade that followed. In one year, 
the net gain in members was 2,144. These were the days of 
heroic labor and hardship for William Davis, James Davis, 
John Hoobler, James Griffith, Frederick Kenoyer, Jacob 
Kenoyer, and others in the Indiana and Wabash conferences. 
In the General Conference of 1845, Wabash conference was 
given two members on the boundary committee, while each 
of the other conferences was given but one, because the work 
of the committee was chiefly the carving out of new annual 
conference districts from the wide territory of the Wabash 
conference. The conferences thus provided for were the 
St. Joseph, the Illinois, and the Iowa. 

The first session of Illinois conference was held “at Mack¬ 
inaw church,” near Lexington, Illinois, commencing August 
28, 1845, Bishop Russel presiding. The following are the 
names of the charter members of the conference: J. Denham, 
Josiah Terrel, J. P. Eckles, David Breeding, Frederick Ken¬ 
oyer, J. B. McVey, Hiram Freeman, J. D. Hock, Isaac Messer, 
Robert Baker, J. T. Timmons, A. Long, J. T. Mandeville, 
Jacob Kenoyer, Charles Schleigh. James Davis and George 
Brown were noted as absent. The charges to which appoint¬ 
ments were made were Vermont, Mackinaw, Iroquois, and 
Monroe circuits, and Griggsville, Bath, Naples, Lewistown, 
Ellisville, Pontiac, Kickapoo, Kankakee, Pine Creek, Apple 
Creek, and Rock River missions. James Davis was made 
presiding elder over the north district, which included two or 
three charges in Wisconsin. Josiah Terrel and F. Kenoyer 
were the other presiding elders. The conference expressed 
its thanks to “Mrs. Beaunson for her liberal contribution of 
$100 missionary money.” The next session was held at Spring 
Grove, Green county, Wisconsin. Seven new missions were 


736 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


created. John Denham was appointed general missionary. 
The years following were characterized by constant diligence 
and the spirit of adventure. Small sums constantly were being 
received from "eastern brethren” and annual conferences to 
supplement the small salaries of the missionaries. 

The General Conference of 1853 divided the conference 
by a line beginning at the junction of the Mississippi and Rock 
rivers, thence up Rock river to the crossing of the Rock Island 
and Peru railroad, thence east with said railroad to Peru. The 
new conference was called the Rock River conference. The 
charges that the Illinois conference retained were the Mendon, 
Nauvoo, Panther Creek, Pontiac, Blandinsville, and Keiths- 
burg missions, and Griggsville, Vermont, Decatur, Princeville, 
and Mackinaw circuits. The presiding elders for the Illinois 
conference were J. R. Evans and J. A. Kenoyer. The confer¬ 
ence urged the speedy completion of the building for Blandins¬ 
ville seminary, an institution that ran its course in about ten 
years. Yet the closing up of the affairs of the seminary re¬ 
quired several years more. 

From 1853 to 1865, the Illinois conference grew rapidly in 
the number of ministers and Church members. The General 
Conference of 1865, in response to previous request of the 
conference, divided the conference territory, making the 
Illinois river the dividing line. The west division retained the 
old name, and the east division was called the Central Illinois 
conference. The two conferences met in separate sessions in 
the fall of 1865. Illinois conference convened at Astoria, 
Illinois, September 21,1865. Some of the prominent preachers 
within its reduced boundaries were J. Dunham, I. Kretzinger, 
N. A. Walker, A. Wimsett, D. F. Bair, B. W. Bowman, J. L. 
Field, St. Clair Ross, and 0. F. Smith. In 1867, the member¬ 
ship of the Illinois conference numbered 3,120. With little 
variation in membership, the conference continued its separate 
existence until 1905, when it was merged with the Northern 
Illinois conference, formed in 1901 by the merging of the 
Central Illinois and Rock River conferences. The presiding 
elders elected in 1905 for the enlarged Northern Illinois confer¬ 
ence were H. W. Trueblood, C. A. Thorn, and V. W. Overton. 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


737 


In 1909, this enlarging stream received a large part of the 
Upper Wabash conference. In 1917, the General Conference 
authorized the uniting of the greater Northern Illinois confer¬ 
ence with the Lower Wabash conference. These two confer¬ 
ences accordingly were merged in 1918. The Northern Illinois 
conference brought to this union 10,676 members and the 
Lower Wabash 12,008 members. W. L. Perkins, who had 
served as conference superintendent in the Lower Wabash 
conference, and M. B. Leach, who had served in the Northern 
Illinois conference as conference superintendent, were elected 
superintendents of the State-wide Illinois conference. With a 
gain of 291 members in the year, the conference started out 
with a membership of 22,975. In 1923, the membership stood 
at 25,734. The larger territory, the larger body of ministers, 
and the increased Church membership conduce to a proper 
utilization of forces and resources, greater enthusiasm, and a 
wider outlook. For three years, W. L. Perkins and W. H. 
Arbogast were associated as the conference superintendents. 
In 1923, W. L. Perkins was made superintendent over the 
entire conference. The ministerial representatives of the con¬ 
ference in the General Conference of 1921 were W. L. Perkins, 
W. H. Arbogast, M. B. Leach, G. W. Bonebrake, J. M. Phil- 
lippi, and E. H. Shuey. The one last named is a well-known 
church builder, to which class Elmer Fowler belongs. F. N. 
Munch, of Decatur, Illinois, and A. Anderson, of Polo, Illinois, 
as laymen, are much enlisted in the general work of the confer¬ 
ence and the Church at large. J. W. Boggess, who entered the 
ministry in West Virginia, and yet is in active work, has ren¬ 
dered long service within the conference borders. H. W. 
Trueblood, who was licensed to preach in 1882, by death 
through a distressing accident, was called out of his work 
March 5, 1924. J. A. Hawkins, whose chief service was 
rendered in the Lower Wabash conference, was called from 
labor to his reward January 16, 1924. His death was deeply 
felt by all that were acquainted with his life and work. Of the 
retired itinerants, D. R. Seneff and T. D. Spyker, both long 
connected with the Lower Wabash conference, and H. F. Kline 


738 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


and A. Rigney, former leaders in Illinois conference, are widely 
known. 

Illinois conference has a large number of excellent rural 
charges. In this territory, as elsewhere, city work long was 
delayed. Some of the beginnings in this direction were un¬ 
fortunate and unsuccessful. In 1862, there was a Chicago 
mission station, of which C. T. Stearn was pastor the following 
year. J. K. M. Looker, the next pastor, was gifted, but later 
withdrew from the Church under serious charges. The 
Chicago mission was short-lived. Chicago now has two well- 
established English churches, the Weaver Memorial and Grace 
church and two German churches. A. E. Wright has been 
the efficient pastor of Grace church since 1906. Bloomington 
has two well-established churches. Other cities occupied are 
Casey, Danville, Decatur, with three churches, Sterling, Rock¬ 
ford, Freeport, Galesburg, Peoria, Paris, Lawrenceville, Robin¬ 
son, Charleston, East St. Louis, Westfield, Springfield, St. 
Francisville and Lexington. A Bishop's parsonage was lo¬ 
cated at Lexington in 1869. Near here the first permanent 
charge in Illinois was established. 

In seeking to get a general view of the course of the 
Illinois conferences, we should notice first that a somewhat 
clear distinction can be made between the southern, or Lower 
Wabash, branch, and the northern branch of conferences. 
The more continuous line of the northern branch has been 
followed under the name Illinois conference. 

The Central Illinois conference became separate from the 
Illinois conference in 1865, and united with the Rock River 
conference in 1901, to form the Northern Illinois conference. 
Its Church membership varied from 2,265 in 1867 to 3,505 in 
1898, this being the highest point reached. M. Ambrose, 
L. D. Ambrose, L. Field, and J. A. F. King were among the 
leading ministers of the conference. 

The Rock River conference had a long history, from its 
formation by separation from the Illinois conference in 1853, 
to its union with the Central Illinois conference in 1901 to 
form the Northern Illinois conference. The church member¬ 
ship varied from about 2,000 in the sixties to about 1,500 at 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


739 


the last. No territory in the Church was better or more 
favorable, but there were some difficulties and jealousies that 
tended to defeat even the best purposes and efforts. Favorable 
mention may be made of the labors and influence in the con¬ 
ference of J. W. Boggess, I. K. Statton, and C. Wendle. 

The Upper Wabash conference had a long record of growth 
and usefulness. We have noticed the formation of a number of 
conferences from the Wabash conference in 1845. It soon was 
advancing rapidly again, and in 1858 a division was made 
into the Upper and the Lower Wabash conferences, the latter 
being recognized as the new conference. In 1867, the Upper 
Wabash conference had a church membership of 3,440, which 
was increased to 7,609 in 1909, when the conference was 
partitioned, a part going to the Indiana conferences and a 
part to the Northern Illinois conference. Leading ministers 
in the conference were J. Griffith, T. M. Hamilton, J. S. 
Cooper, J. W. Nye, J. Cowgill, W. E. Stanley and 0. P. Cooper. 
In the laity, J. M. Bonebrake, of Veedersburg, Indiana, was 
one of the strongest supporters of the Church and its various 
institutions. 

The Lower Wabash conference was the trunk line of the 
southern section that was brought into the State-wide Illinois 
conference in 1918. In 1867, its Church membership num¬ 
bered 4,029. In the most of its course it had a steady and 
healthy growth. In 1909, it lost its territory in Indiana, but 
gained territory in Illinois from the Upper Wabash conference. 
The work of the Board of Missions in southern Illinois resulted 
in the formation of a Southern Illinois mission conference in 
1871, but the conference did not prosper and in 1889 its terri¬ 
tory was given to the Lower Wabash conference. Much of the 
history of the Lower Wabash conference centered about West- 
field College. The following names are quite as suggestive 
of the efforts to maintain the college as they are of the confer¬ 
ence work: W. C. Smith, S. Mills, S. B. Allen, J. F. Moore, 
D. R. Seneff, T. D. Spyker, W. M. Givens, J. B. Connett, and 
J. A. Hawkins. Linked with these names should be that of 
W. R. Shuey, whose service as professor and president of West- 
field College, almost paralleled the life of the school and that 


740 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


of J. G. Shuey, his brother, long a pastor and presiding elder. 
L. H. Cooley, college teacher, pastor, and presiding elder, also 
filled an important place. 

Wisconsin Conference. 

Wisconsin was organized as a Territory in 1836, and as a 
State in 1848. In the period within these dates, United 
Brethren families, soon followed by United Brethren mission¬ 
aries, found their way to the virgin areas of this new frontier. 
First, it was the Wabash conference that extended its long 
arms in this direction. In the Wabash Conference minutes 
for 1842, Wisconsin mission is named, with James Davis as the 
missionary. In the minutes for 1843, we find the item, “ Wis¬ 
consin mission, James Davis,” standing by the item, “Iowa 
mission, to be supplied.” It may be proper to give the state¬ 
ment that followed: “There has been a net increase of mem¬ 
bers in this conference district of 2,144.” James Davis may 
be called the father of the Wisconsin conference. He became 
a member of Indiana conference in 1833, two years before the 
Wabash conference was formed. He belonged to the United 
Brethren community on the Upper Wabash. When con¬ 
verted he could not read or write. When he began to preach, 
he had simply his experience to tell. When he became a 
circuit-rider he put his German and English grammars, along 
with his Bible, in his saddlebags. His chief labor was given 
to the Church in Wisconsin. In 1850, he became super¬ 
annuated, and received a transfer to Iowa conference, the 
Illinois conference, formed from the Wabash, continuing to 
recognize him as a claimant on its benevolent funds. He died 
April 12, 1854. For 1844, the Wabash minutes give as the 
appointments to Wisconsin: James Davis, presiding elder; 
Monroe circuit, J. A. Mast; Rock River mission, to be supplied. 
J. A. Mast was a German preacher, who had preached in Ohio 
and Indiana. Rock River circuit extended both into Illinois 
and Wisconsin. When Illinois conference was set off from the 
Wabash conference in 1845, it became the parent conference 
for the field in Wisconsin. The second session of the Illinois 
conference was held at Spring Grove, Green county, Wisconsin. 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


741 


For 1848, Monroe circuit, Sugar River mission, Wisconsin 
mission, and Fox River mission are named. 

When the Illinois conference was divided by the action 
of the General Conference of 1853, the Wisconsin field came 
under the care of Rock River conference. At the first session 
of the Rock River conference, in August, 1853, the charges 
named as belonging to the Wisconsin district were: Monroe 
and Union circuits, and Sugar River, Richland, Coon Creek, 
Sauk Prairie, and Jamestown missions. Through the years 
immediately following, new missions were mapped out. 

The General Conference of 1857 authorized the formation 
of the Wisconsin mission conference. The new conference 
convened at Rutland, Wisconsin, September 16, 1858. The 
members present were L. Davis, Bishop, G. G. Nickey, S. L. 
Eldred, W. Haskins, S. Sutton, E. S. Bunce, N. Smith, C. Sharp, 
J. Payne, S. E. Jenks, E. Collins, J. Cox, J. W. Reed, J. Werner. 
Members absent were J. Lyon and J. Bechtol. R. Powell, 
S. C. Zook, and W. W. Simpkins w r ere received by transfer. 
Those licensed during the session were D. Hannington, R. Cro- 
zier, J. Nicholas, F. Outcalt, E. W. Canfield, and J. B. L. 
Winter. The stationing committee’s report named one 
station—Rutland; three circuits—Sheboygan, Union, and 
Monroe; and sixteen missions. G. G. Nickey and S. L. 
Eldred were elected presiding elders. The statistics gave the 
Church membership at the beginning of the year as numbering 
609, and as 1,461 at the end of the year. Among those licensed 
to preach at the following session was A. Shambaugh, who 
rendered long and efficient service in the conference. At this 
time, appointments were made to one station, four circuits, 
and twenty-five missions. 

In 1861, the formation of the Fox River conference took 
away ten members of Wisconsin conference, namely, D. Har¬ 
rington, R. Pow T ell, A. B. Doolittle, W. H. Stewart, R. Crozier, 
E. Collins, A. J. Thompson, J. Nickolas, J. Williams, and E. S. 
Bunce. The business of the two conferences was transacted 
jointly. The conferences agreed to aid in the support of a 
German district that should include the territory of the two 
conferences. The number of members at the end of the year 


742 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


was 1762. This number, through the setting off of the Fox 
River conference, was reduced at the end of the following year 
to 1228. For a number of years, there were alternations of 
gains and losses in church membership. At the twenty-fifth 
session of the conference, in 1882, the number of members 
given for the close of the year was 1840. For ten years, the 
conference was under the burden of trying to sustain a semin¬ 
ary at Elroy, Wisconsin, but in 1882 it voted “to deed the 
property to the mortgage holders.” From the first, the con¬ 
ference had given itself with great earnestness and care to the 
work before it. But the preachers were evangelists, rather 
than pastors and builders. Not enough attention was given 
to self-support. Good preachers could not give themselves 
continuously to ministerial work because of stinted support, 
and congregations melted away from want of church houses. 
Many ministers raised up in Wisconsin went into other parts 
of the Church. Some of those going over into Iowa were 
E. S. Bunce, S. Sutton, D. C. Talbot, R. D. McCormick, 
M. Fulcomer, William Cunningham, and E. Bovee. A very 
persistent effort was made to hold the conference to the strict 
law of the Church against secret societies. In 1878, the con¬ 
ference voted to ask every preacher, “Are you satisfied with 
our law as it now stands in our book of Discipline on secrecy?" 
In other conferences at this time much the same course was 
being taken. 

One that did not retire or quit the field of Wisconsin was 
G. G. Nickey. He always was ready for all kinds of service. 
He was born in 1818, and joined the Sandusky conference in 
1849. He came to Wisconsin in 1856, and the same year was 
elected presiding elder over Wisconsin district of the Rock 
River conference. He served as presiding elder twenty-three 
years. He was a delegate to seven consecutive sessions of the 
General Conference. He was taken directly out of his work 
by death, October 14, 1884. 

Another always faithful minister in the Wisconsin confer¬ 
ence was S. L. Eldred. He was received into Rock River 
conference in 1854, and was a charter member of Wisconsin 
conference. He died September 19, 1891. 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


743 


A more recent leader in the conference was J. H. Richards. 
He joined the Wisconsin conference in 1880. He completed a 
course in Bonebrake Seminary in 1885. In 1901, he was 
elected presiding elder, and was serving in that capacity at 
the time of his death, March 7, 1904. Bishop Mathews wrote 
of him: “He was the Moses of his conference, and heroically, 
under severe difficulties, was leading his conference to aggres¬ 
sive work.” 

In recent years, there has been a moderate but steady 
growth in the various interests of the conference. Wisconsin 
conference shares in the general movement in the Church to 
bring out and coordinate all available elements of strength. 
G. W. Bechtolt has been the tactful and faithful conference 
superintendent since 1918. The present Church membership 
numbers 3,487. The stronger churches in the conference are 
those of Richland Center, Monroe, and Janesville. W. E. 
Gillingham, as a layman, stands ready for his share of re¬ 
sponsibility and service. It may be stated with confidence 
that there cannot be found in any of the other conferences 
more full, careful, and artistic manuscript entries of conference 
proceedings than those made for the Wisconsin conference for 
the years 1873 to 1888, by the secretaries, James Appleby, 
D. C. Talbot, and H. Deal. 

The Fox River mission conference, by the action of the 
General Conference of 1861, was formed from the northern part 
of the territory of Wisconsin conference. At the same time, 
the Wisconsin conference was made self-supporting. From 
this time, the Board of Missions had authority to organize or 
change the status of mission conferences. The Fox River 
conference had moderate success for a time, its highest church 
membership becoming 639 in 1877; but the membership was 
reduced to 317 in 1884, and the following year its territory was 
restored to the Wisconsin conference. 

Kentucky Conference. 

The history of the beginnings of missionary work in 
Kentucky belongs especially to the early years of the Indiana 
conference, but it also includes efforts extended from the 


744 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Miami conference, and even the results coming through immi¬ 
gration and visitation from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and 
Virginia. But the grafts from the older parts of the Church 
did not thrive in slave soil, and efforts since the overthrow of 
slavery, for the most part, have been equally unsuccessful. 
Kentucky remains mission territory. As in other cases the 
Church has been taught by its mistakes and failures, may it 
not be so with reference to the work of the Church in Ken¬ 
tucky? The work in Kentucky continued to be cared for by 
the Indiana conference as a part of its own work. The In¬ 
diana conference met in Adair county, Kentucky, in 1850. 
This gave rise to the statement generally made that the 
Kentucky conference was organized in 1850. The work in 
Kentucky was growing steadily and substantially, and the 
General Conference of 1857 authorized the formation of a 
conference in Kentucky. November 19, 1857, Kentucky 
mission conference met in its first session at New Salem meeting 
house, in Adair county, Kentucky, Henry Kumler, Jr., being 
made Bishop pro tern. A. L. Best was elected secretary. 
Members present were John Blair, R. Armstrong, A. L. Best, 
C. Hughart, and R. T. Leftwich. The statistics showed: 
Classes, 14; appointments, 21; members, 396; meeting houses, 
18. The appointments for the year were Columbia mission, 
C. Hughart; Jamestown mission, R. Armstrong; presiding 
elder, A. L. Best. 

It was not the fault of the missionaries that the conference 
did not continue to prosper. The cause was the war and hatred 
for all persons that were supposed to be opposed to slavery. 
R. Armstrong wrote in 1860: “A great many of our leading 
members are now preparing to move West. Our lives are now 
threatened. . . . Rev. John M. Blair and three of his sons 
and their families and about eight other families, among whom 
is the missionary, are about to leave this State.” William 
Blair, old and feeble, and R. Armstrong sought to encourage 
and hold together the membership; but, later, Armstrong felt 
constrained to leave, and only William Blair was left to report 
the situation from time to time. As well may be supposed, 
obstacles remained long after the close of the war. Some of 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


745 


the time, the work in Kentucky has been classed as a confer* 
ence, and, some of the time, as a mission district. In 1915, 
the membership column in the conference chart showed a 
membership of 2,160, but the other columns were sadly de¬ 
ficient. In 1921, the State of Kentucky, with the exception 
of the territory adjacent to Indiana, was assigned to Tennessee 
conference, Newport, however, continuing a part of Miami 
conference. 


Tennessee Conference. 

The earliest United Brethren missionary in Tennessee 
was Henry Baker, of whom Bishop Asbury spoke as the 
“ excellent Baker.” Of the place and the results of his labors, 
nothing is known. A mission in Tennessee was constituted by 
the Virginia conference in March, 1856, with a view to follow 
up members of the United Brethren Church that had moved 
from Virginia to Tennessee, and John Ruebush was appointed 
as the missionary. However, there was some understanding 
or agreement with the executive committee of the Board of 
Missions as early as March, 1856. The board, at its meeting 
in June, left the mission with the executive committee. The 
first report of Mr. Ruebush, sent to the board in June, 1856, 
from Washington county, Tennessee, was favorable and 
encouraging. The mission in the next few years gained a 
strong hold on the people, but excited the fear and wrath of the 
friends of slavery. Parson Brownlow, of the Knoxville Whig, 
wrote: “Rev. John Ruebush, a missionary of the United 
Brethren, is laboring in the vineyard of upper East Tennessee, 
and is a very popular man among the negroes. He is the 
agent for the sale of divers books and publications hailing from 
Dayton, Ohio. Among the list of books are Lawrence on 
Slavery, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and such infamous publications.” 
To relieve the tension, Mr. Ruebush asked to have his Telescope 
stopped for a time. After the breaking out of the Civil War, 
it was necessary to suspend the work. After the war, Mr. Rue¬ 
bush reentered the field, supported by other workers. 

November 22, 1866, Tennessee conference met at Otter- 
bein chapel, Green county, Tennessee, in its first session, Bishop 


746 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Glossbrenner presiding. The members recognized were John 
Ruebush, D. A. Beauchamp, and A. E. Evans. Enos Keezel 
and R. J. Bishop were received as members. The appoint¬ 
ments made were as follows: Otterbein mission, E. Keezel; 
Greenville mission, D. A. Beauchamp; Washington mission, 
John Ruebush; Russelville mission, A. E. Evans; New Market 
mission, to be supplied; John Ruebush, presiding elder. The 
statistics showed: Appointments, 5; classes, 6; members, 209; 
meeting houses, 1. The membership increased slowly until 
1886, when it passed the 1000 mark. In 1918, the member¬ 
ship had risen to 2002. The following year, the East Tennessee 
and West Tennessee conferences were united. The combined 
membership at the end of 1919 was 3375. In 1923, the mem¬ 
bership reported was 3518. The present superintendent is 

E. L. Smith. The preceding superintendent for the confer¬ 
ence was W. H. Wright. Among the preachers and leaders of 
the East Tennessee conference were E. Horner, A. J. Newgent, 
J. M. Knight, and S. W. Paul. 

Beginning in 1894, there was a disposition on the part of a 
number of ministers of the Methodist Episcopal church in 
Tennessee, as well as in other parts of the South, to seek union 
with the United Brethren Church. While the results were not 
what it at first seemed they might be, the movement resulted 
in a number of valuable accessions to the ministry, and the 
opening of new fields and avenues of work. T. C. Carter was 
the well-known leader in this movement. Tennessee con¬ 
ference now includes Kentucky, except the parts contiguous 
to Indiana and Ohio. E. M. Horner and Sam Kreis are among 
the aggressive laymen of Tennessee. 

The West Tennessee conference, called at first the Ten¬ 
nessee River conference, was organized November 26, 1896, at 
Parsons, Tennessee, W. M. Bell, the missionary secretary, 
presiding. Seven preachers enrolled at the organization. 

F. M. Morgan and U. B. Crowell were made presiding elders. 
T. C. Carter assisted in the organization. Later, C. J. Phette- 
place, J. T. Foster and Robert Earls were leading ministers in 
the conference. In 1918, prior to the union with the East 
Tennessee conference, the church membership numbered 1,797. 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


747 


Florida Conference. 

In 1917, the Florida conference was first expressly named. 
More than twenty years before the formation of the conference, 
I.W. Bearss, a minister from Kansas and Missouri, moved 
with his family to Florida, and built a church about ten miles 
north of Tampa. A Georgia conference was organized in 
1902, and continued thereafter until 1913. A Georgia-Florida 
conference was listed from 1913 to 1917. Since that time, a 
Florida conference has been recognized. The above represents 
the line through which the work in Florida has been developed. 
Some of the superintendents in this field have been J. D. 
Wyant, G. P. Macklin, and R. A. Smith. The greatest ma¬ 
terial achievement was the completion in 1918, under the 
labors of R. A. Smith, of a commodious and impressive church 
in the city of Tampa. J. E. Grimes is the present conference 
superintendent. 

Iowa Conference. 

Iowa became a separate Territory in 1838, and a State 
in 1846. Before this time, however, after the Black Hawk 
war, settlers, getting in advance of the surveyor, were crossing 
the Mississippi, and the northern line of Missouri into the 
new land of promise.* The first United Brethren preacher to 
seek a home and a field for missionary work in Iowa was John 
Burns, who settled in Lee county about 1837. He had been 
licensed to preach in the Indiana conference in 1834, and the 
next year went with others into the Wabash conference, which 
held its first session that year. He was present at the session 
of the Wabash conference in September, 1836. In 1838, 
Christian Troup, who received license to preach from Virginia 
conference in 1821, settled in Linn county. He had preached 
a number of years in Virginia, then several years in the Miami 
conference and then passed into the territory of the Wabash 
conference. In 1842, John Everhart and F. R. S. Byrd were 
accessions to the missionary force. The latter always hovered 

*The full stretch of the memory of the writer reaches back to the spring of 1854, when, 
with his father’s family, he was taken across the Mississippi river in a horse-ferry at Prairie du 
Chien, Wisconsin, on the way to an Iowa home. He barely escaped being taken the year 
before, with the Connor colony, to Oregon. 



748 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


on the frontier line. The former, more definitely than any 
of the others named, came as a missionary. He is said to have 
been a son of Lorenz Everhart, the Revolutionary hero that 
helped to carry the wounded LaFayette from the field of battle. 
The minutes of the Indiana conference for 1841 recite the fact 
that John Everhart was received from the Methodist Protes¬ 
tant church, and that at his request “he was ordained a 
missionary to Iowa as a member of this conference.” Of the 
faithfulness and devotion of this self-sacrificing missionary, 
Bishop Russel and others have left abundant testimony. 

In October, 1841, Ira B. Ryan, a layman, who afterward 
became a preacher, formed the nucleus of a class at the house 
of Father Edgington, who lived on Cedar river, in what now is 
Muscatine county. On invitation, Christian Troup came 
from his home in Linn county, in March, 1842, and ratified 
what had been done, and helped in enlarging the work. This 
should be called the first class formed in Iowa. Yet, F. R. S. 
Byrd, immediately on his arrival in Henry county, in April, 
1842, formed a class and had it incorporated, which he called 
the first class in Iowa, perhaps regarding the other class as 
irregularly formed. The first quarterly conference was held 
at Yankee Grove (Lisbon) in Linn county, May 10, 1842. 
The second was held in Henry county, September 10, 1842. 
At the third session, March 1, 1843, business of an annual 
conference nature was transacted. September 28, 1843, 
a fourth quarterly conference was held at the house of H. S. 
Denham, at Columbus City. This conference was under the 
appointment of Josiah Davis, one of the presiding elders of 
the Wabash conference, and was attended by J. Denham and 
J. Peters, both members of the Wabash conference, the latter 
coming to spend several months as a missionary. At these 
four conferences, all of the pioneer missionaries first mentioned 
generally were present, also some other preachers, along with 
some exhorters and class leaders. The preachers, especially 
Everhart and Troup, preached over wide districts, and with 
enthusiasm other preachers joined in the work. 

In 1844, Bishop Henry Kumler, Jr., and John Denham, 
at the direction of the Wabash conference, visited Iowa and 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


749 


held what was called a session of the Iowa branch of the 
Wabash conference. The conference met May 19, 1844, at 
Columbus City. The preachers present, besides Bishop Kum- 
ler and J. Denham, were John Everhart, John Burns, F. R. S. 
Byrd, and A. A. Sellers. David Shaffer and S. Clingan were 
received by transfer. Moses Garrison, Duff Barrows, and 
Ira B. Ryan were given license to preach. A. A. Sellers, before 
coming to Iowa, in 1839, had been preaching occasionally 
without a license for thirteen years, but was given a license in 
1842, and was ordained by Christian Troup in 1843. He was 
long an ardent preacher, and a faithful stand-by in all of the 
work of the Church. After the regular authorization of the 
Iowa conference by the General Conference of 1845, Bishop 
Russel, with his wife, made the long trip in a carriage to Iowa 
and regularly organized the Iowa conference August 14, 1845, 
at the house of William Thompson, in Louisa county. The 
preachers recorded as present were Christian Troup, A. A. 
Sellers, F. R. S. Byrd, Jacob Miller, G. S. Clingan, D. Bar- 
rows, and Ira B. Ryan. Those noted as absent were J. Ever¬ 
hart, J. B. Bonapart, D. Shaffer, and Moses Garrison. J. Shive¬ 
ly and J.W. Sterling v/ere licensed to preach. Jacob Miller 
and W. Hendrickson were received by transfer. It was re¬ 
solved, “That we be no more known by the name of the 
Wabash branch conference, but designated by the Iowa annual 
conference.” All of the acts of the session of 1844, and of the 
previous quarterly conferences, were recognized as valid. Yet, 
the conference ordered that the annual sessions should be 
numbered from the session of 1845. John Everhart and 
Christian Troup were elected presiding elders. Seven mission¬ 
aries, besides the presiding elders, went out to cover a territory 
in the southeast part of Iowa reaching from the Missouri line 
to the north line of Linn county. Small contributions came 
from the different parts of the Church to supplement the 
small sums received by the missionaries. In many wide 
stretches of country, nothing was to be seen but sky and grass. 
When Bishop Russel made his trip to organize the conference 
in 1845, he lost his way. He went forward, parting the grass 
with his hands, and, when he had gone a certain distance, he 


750 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


lifted his hat on his cane so that his wife might see and follow 
with the horse and carriage. Some of the preachers not al¬ 
ready named that lived to give long service to the Church in 
Iowa, with date of their becoming members of the conference, 
were the following: J. Lindsay, 1843; Luther McVey, 1846; 
S. W. Kern, 1847; D. Wenrich, 1849; William Demoss and 
D. Runkle, 1850; George Miller, 1851; M. G. Miller, R. Log- 
gan, and C. F. Bowers, 1852; M. Bowman, 1853. Christian 
Hershey was received in 1848, but died in 1853. Out of his 
own means, he built at Lisbon, Iowa, a small brick church, the 
first church house erected in Iowa. John Demoss, whose life 
burned out too quickly, was received in 1848. Christian 
Troup died April 10, 1852. He preached the first sermon in 
Linn county. He stood for organization and order, as well as 
for evangelization. The first statistics handed down were the 
following, for 1851: Classes, 67; appointments, 120; members 
found, 740; received, 551; expelled, 16; withdrawn, 26; died, 
14; increase, 476; present number, 1216. By the next year, 
the work, especially the field occupied, had come to be so 
enlarged that the conference asked for a division of territory. 
Accordingly, the General Conference, at its session in 1853, 
set off what was called the Des Moines conference, the Iowa 
river being made the dividing line. The larger number of the 
preachers already named went with the new conference, in¬ 
cluding the pioneers, Everhart, Sellers, Burns, and Ryan, 
F. R. S. Byrd transferred from the Iowa conference to the 
Des Moines in 1856. In the Iowa conference, the leading 
members were S. W. Kern, D. Wenrich, D. Runkle, M. Bow¬ 
man, George Miller, and M. G. Miller. At the joint session 
of the conferences in 1853, J. Everhart and J. Burns were 
elected presiding elders for the Des Moines conference, and 
S. W. Kern, for the Iowa conference. In 1855, S. Weaver, later 
prominent in educational work in Iowa and Kansas, was 
received on transfer from Muskingum conference. J. Goodin, 
a strong and useful preacher, his later years being given to 
work in Illinois, was received on transfer from Muskingum 
conference. This year the first measures were taken looking 
toward the founding of a college in Iowa, of which notice 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


751 


already has been taken. In 1857, the conference met at West 
Union, Iowa, in the northern part of the State. W. W. 
Richardson was received on transfer from the White River 
conference. In 1858, the conference met "at Western College.” 
Among those received on transfer were J. E. Bowersox, W. B. 
Wagner, A. Shesler, I. Shaffer, and E. Fothergill, who before 
had been given a transfer from Iowa conference. The net 
increase in membership for the year was 1375. In 1860, the 
conference met at West Union. M. S. Drury and Simon 
George were among those received into the conference. J. Good¬ 
in, M. Bowman, and D. Wenrich, were elected presiding 
elders. 

At the General Conference of 1861, North Iowa confer¬ 
ence was set off from Iowa conference. In 1871, I. L. Buch- 
walter was received on his transfer from Minnesota conference, 
and L. Bookwalter was granted license to preach. Conditions 
in connection with the Civil war interfered with the growth 
both of the Iowa and North Iowa conferences, other reasons 
coming in also. On the authorization of the General Confer¬ 
ence, these annual conferences voted to unite, and held their 
first session as one body in 1874. Some of those uniting with 
the conference at this time were E. B. Kephart, on his transfer 
from Allegheny conference; and, as receiving license, C. J. 
Kephart, F. M. Washburn, J. W. Robertson, G. W. Benson, 
and A. W. Drury. As time passed, the Iowa conference 
applied itself faithfully to the cultivation of its field. New 
lines and features of Church work were incorporated promptly. 
Prominent ministers in this period, in addition to others al¬ 
ready named, were I. K. Statton, S. Sutton, R. E. Williams, 
T. D. Adams, and V. A. Carlton. The conference had also 
the hallowing influence of the later years of William Davis. 

In 1889, East Des Moines conference was united with the 
Iowa conference. The combined Church membership in 1890 
was 5884. In 1908, the Church membership was 6094. At 
the same time, the Church membership of the Des Moines 
conference, which the next year was joined with the Iowa 
conference, was 5094. The name given to the conference thus 
formed was the Iowa State conference, which was changed to 


752 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Iowa conference in 1917. The presiding elder in the Iowa 
conference before the union was J. H. Patterson, and the pre¬ 
siding elders in the Des Moines conference were George Miller 
and E. W. Curtis. In 1909, for the united conference, the 
presiding elders or conference superintendents were E. W. 
Curtis and Ira Holbrook. Since 1913, J. C. H. Light was the 
conference superintendent three years, and W. F. Cronk the 
conference superintendent seven years. In 1923, G. W. 
Emerson and W. L. Duncan were elected conference superin¬ 
tendents. The high-water mark for the Church membership 
was 11,636 in 1917. In 1923, the membership was 10,500. 
Some would say that the cause of a halted advance is to be 
found in a departure from the old ways, and others might 
think that the cause is to be found in the failure to adopt 
new methods with promptness and decision. Possibly, the 
right question is not as to old or new, but rather as to what the 
way of the Lord may be. That always will succeed. In 
consequence of the changes constantly taking place in the rural 
population of Iowa, it is difficult to build up strong rural 
charges. The stronger city churches are at Muscatine, 
Toledo, Cedar Rapids, Gladbrook, Lisbon, Marshalltown, 
Waterloo, Ames and Webster City. W. E. Burgess, of Des- 
Moines, a layman, has charge of the finances of the conference 
as conference treasurer. 

Thus we have sought to follow the original stream of the 
Iowa conference, noting the separations that took place, and 
then the coming together of the various branches into the 
State-wide conference, In the early period, the Iowa, and 
later the Des Moines conferences extended their operations 
into northern Missouri. For a number of years, the West 
Des Moines boundaries included southern Nebraska. From 
1871 to 1885, Dakota mission conference included a part of 
northwestern Iowa. 

The Des Moines conference, at the time of its origin, in 
1853, had more of the original soil and a larger number of the 
preachers belonging to the original Iowa conference than the 
conference that continued to bear the name Iowa conference. 
For some years, the Des Moines conference met with gratifying 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


753 


success. Statistics apparently for 1861 showed a Church 
membership of 4393. Most of the pioneer preachers still were 
in the work of the conference. In 1854, G. Bonebrake and 
Henry Bonebrake were received on their transfers. For a 
number of sessions, W. M. K. Cain was secretary. In 1854 
and 1855, he was publishing the Virginia Telescope in West 
Virginia. L. S. Grove was the secretary for many sessions. 
In 1861, the conference was divided, and thereafter the names 
East Des Moines and West Des Moines appear as the names of 
the two conferences. In the spring of 1861, John Everhart, 
the pioneer missionary, died. In 1867, the Church member¬ 
ship in the East Des Moines conference was 1450. It rose to 
2390 in 1870, and declined to 1790 in 1889, when the conference 
was united with the Iowa conference. With a long record of 
service in this conference, A. Schwimley is among the few 
survivors of the toilers in this conference. J. P. Wilson, who 
transferred to the Iowa conference, died in 1924. 

The West Des Moines conference, called simply the 
Des Moines after 1889, had a vigorous life throughout its 
course down to 1909, when it entered into union with the 
Iowa conference. It had for its sphere of action all of the 
western part of the State of Iowa, including the city of Des- 
Moines. Its church membership numbered 5094 in 1908. 
L. H. Bufkin was long an efficient minister in the conference. 
T. D. Adams was one of the strong men in the ministry. His 
later years were given to work in the Iowa conference. J. M. 
Dosh was a preacher of force and influence in the earlier 
period. The life and work of George Miller almost coincide 
with the history of the conference. He was a presiding elder 
for over thirty years, and served on many of the important 
Church boards. He died June 4, 1920. 

The North Iowa conference held its first session in con¬ 
junction with the Iowa conference at Lisbon, Iowa, beginning 
September 5, 1862. Within a short period after the organiza¬ 
tion of the Iowa conference, in the southeastern part of Iowa, 
in 1845, the work of the Church was extended north to the 
Minnesota line. With a United Brethren family here and 
there as a center, missions and circuits were formed rapidly. 


754 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


There seemed to be a close affinity between the United Breth¬ 
ren missionary and the newly-arrived immigrants. Some of 
those that gave themselves most fully to the work of the 
ministry, both as pastors and presiding elders, were D. Wenrich, 
E. Fothergill, G. H. Watrous, M. S. Drury, I. Shaffer, W. W. 
Richardson, and G. Harding. In the eleven years of the separ¬ 
ate existence of the North Iowa conference, 3994 members 
were received. M. R. Drury, who joined the conference in 
1872, is the only one that still is marked an “active itinerant.” 

Minnesota Conference. 

E. Clow became a volunteer preacher in Minnesota in 
1854, and in a meeting later held by him M. L. Tibbets was 
converted. The fruitful ministry of M. L. Tibbetts in Minne¬ 
sota and elsewhere is well known. E. Clow was admitted to 
the Rock River conference at its session in 1855. At that 
session, “a collection was raised for Brother Clow of Minne¬ 
sota of $22.” In 1856, J. W. Fulkerson, an able minister from 
Virginia, under appointment of the Board of Missions, entered 
on his long term of service in Minnesota. In 1857, J. Haney, 
likewise an experienced preacher from Virginia, was sent by 
the Missionary Board to the new field in Minnesota. The 
Minnesota conference was organized August 5,1857, at Marion, 
Minnesota. Three missionaries, Clow, Fulkerson, and Haney, 
with Bishop Davis, constituted the membership of the confer¬ 
ence. J. Merrell, who also was present, was transferred the 
next year. The three missionaries were assigned to three 
missions, on which sixty-eight members were found. M. L. 
Tibbetts was received into the conference in 1859. In 1864, 
I. L. Buchwaiter, from Scioto conference, and later N. E. 
Gardner and S. D. Kemerer joined the force of workers. 
Much heroism was manifested by the pioneer missionaries, 
and good success attended their efforts. Yet, conditions were 
difficult and progress was retarded. The rigorous climate and 
long travels of the missionaries seem not to have shortened 
their lives. The dates for their death were as follows: E. Clow, 
January 11, 1898; J. W. Fulkerson, January 20, 1910, after a 
ministry of sixty-seven years; J. Haney, November 8, 1904, 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


755 


aged ninety-seven years, six months, twenty-eight days; M. L. 
Tibbetts, January 14, 1916. U. A. Cook, converted under 
Tibbetts in 1876, joined Minnesota conference in 1877. He 
died October 5, 1919. The church membership in 1922 was 
1642, the highest number yet reached. The following year it 
was 89 less. In 1914, a good church building was dedicated 
in Minneapolis, under the pastorate of H. M. Klinger. The 
conference now is promoting the building of a church in Roches¬ 
ter. Recent conference superintendents have been R. B. 
Emerson, M. H. Frye, J. T. Oliphant and H. Deal, the present 
superintendent. 


Missouri Conference. 

The first missionary work in Missouri had little to do with 
the present Missouri conference. Yet it is proper to notice it 
here. It would at first seem that the southwest comer of a 
slave State was a poor place at which to start a United Brethren 
mission, especially in those turbulent Kansas-Nebraska days. 
Some United Brethren families had moved into southwestern 
Missouri, and among them some quarterly conference preach¬ 
ers. Some classes had been formed. The home of John 
Harris, in Jasper county, was a center for the work. At the 
session of the Sandusky conference in 1851, the sum of $126 
was placed in Bishop Glossbrenner’s hands to be used in 
Missouri, provided a suitable missionary could be found. 
At the session of the Miami conference in 1852, Henry Kum- 
ler, Jr., was unanimously elected “presiding elder for Missouri/' 
with the Sandusky contribution, and a gift of $30 and a pledge 
of daily prayer in his behalf from the Miami conference to 
support him. The same year, he made the long hard trip 
in a buggy to southwestern Missouri. His efforts met with 
success, but he saw that results could not be permanent with¬ 
out churches. So he returned, gathered money, bought and 
shipped some materials for a church, took passage by steamer 
for the large part of the way to his mission field, bought a 
horse and rode the rest of the way, and helped to complete a 
little house of worship. The first act of the new Missionary 
Board was to appoint Josiah Terrel, in 1853, to the mission. 


756 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


He preached in southwestern Missouri, and also across the 
line in what was called the Indian Territory. November 3, 
1854, the Missouri conference was organized at Short Creek 
schoolhouse, Jasper county, Missouri, J. C. Bright presiding 
in the absence of Bishop Edwards. The ministerial force 
consisted of three ordained and two unordained missionaries, 
assigned to five mission fields. 

In 1858, Daniel Shuck was sent to establish a mission in 
the central part of Missouri. It was called St. Aubert mission. 
Some thought that in ten years Missouri would become a free 
State. Thus the United Brethren missionaries felt that they 
were doing a piece of anti-slavery work. At the meeting of 
the board in 1858, it was suggested that the mission field in 
southwestern Missouri should be placed in the care of the 
Kansas conference, with an appropriation of $200 for Missouri. 
St. Aubert mission was to be placed under the Missouri confer¬ 
ence, and the space between was to be occupied. But nothing 
decisive was done. 

October 1, 1858, the Missouri conference met in Calaway 
county, the seat of St. Aubert mission, in its “fifth session.” 
The members present, besides Bishop Edwards, were W. B. 
Southard and A. P. Floyd, who had come on horseback two 
hundred miles from southwestern Missouri. Conference busi¬ 
ness was transacted as usual, only the place for the holding of 
the next session was left to be decided in the future. Following 
this fifth session, some thinking and planning were going on 
somewhere. At the session of the Des Moines conference in 
1859, the following resolution was adopted: “Whereas, The 
General Conference of 1857 made the State line between Iowa 
and Missouri the ecclesiastical line between the two confer¬ 
ences; and, Whereas, The brethren south of the line, desire to 
unite with the Missouri conference; therefore, Resolved, that 
we acquiesce in the action of the General Conference and the 
wish of our Missouri brethren, and by general consent we 
relinquish all claim to that territory.” M. Michael, whom we 
before met in the Virginia conference, was elected one of the 
presiding elders, but resigned “to remove to the bounds of the 
Missouri conference.” He was asked to take charge of the 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


757 


Missouri work until the session of that conference. The terri¬ 
tory in Missouri had been cultivated by the Iowa conferences 
since 1847. About a month later, October 18, 1859, the 
Missouri conference convened at Atlanta, Macon county, 
Missouri. Macon county is in the third tier of counties south 
of the Iowa line. The members present were Bishop Edwards, 
M. Michael, W. H. Bums, B. Wade, T. Perkins, G. H. Busby, 
and J. H. McVay. J. T. Timmons was received on transfer. 
J. Osborn, J. Mayfield, and P. Shanklin, who were not present 
at the conference, were assigned to charges. S. Coblentz, 
supported by the Board of Missions, had charge of St. Aubert 
mission. In all, there were ten charges, with M. Michael as 
presiding elder. There was no reference to southwestern 
Missouri, though some of the preachers were from that section. 
Thus, there was an old conference with a new constituency. 
At the session of the Board of Missions in 1860, the corre¬ 
sponding secretary reported in regard to the Missouri confer¬ 
ence: “This conference, which until last fall had a name to 
live but was dead, furnishes abundant proof that it possesses 
life and the elements of prosperity.” The church membership 
in the new Missouri conference has generally ranged between 
2000 and 4000. In 1928 it was 8926. Some of its strong men 
have been U. P. Wardrip and A. W. Geeslin. W. M. Jones has 
been the conference superintendent since 1914. The energies 
of the conference were turned largely for a time to Avalon 
College. Its strongest church is First Church, Kansas City. 
J. S. Kirkpatrick, Kansas City, is depended on as a leader in the 
laity. 

In 1881, the General Conference took from the Osage 
conference that part of its territory in the State of Missouri, 
south of the Missouri river, and with the same constituted a 
new conference under the name the Southwestern Missouri 
mission conference, later called the Southern Missouri con¬ 
ference. From 1885 to 1893, it also embraced four tiers of 
counties in Arkansas. The first session was held November 
10, 1881, at Deer Creek chapel, in Bates county. The names 
of the ministers present were the following: S. Brown, G. Crouse, 
Benjamin Duck, J. R. Evans, J. S. Gingerich, J. K. Glassford, 


758 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


E. L. Joslin, W. F. Miller, J. R. Reed, J. Riley, R. G. Rankin, 
J. F. Stephens, A. Spence, 0. F. Snow, J. T. Timmons, and 
R. C. Thomas. The number of church members at the end 
of the year was 521. In 1897, its church membership num¬ 
bered 1450. At this time, it was united with the Missouri 
conference, thus constituting a State-wide conference. J. M. 
Tresenriter, A. L. Best, and E. B. Slade had membership in 
this conference. 


Kansas Conference. 

It is not necessary to prove that Kansas is a great State. 
The people there freely admit it. Some United Brethren in 
Kansas think that some of the qualities of the State attach 
themselves to the work of the United Brethren Church in 
the State, all of which work is now brought together in a single 
State-wide, and, one might add, State-long conference. The 
political and religious motives were closely mixed in the settle¬ 
ment of Kansas. The effort was to build up a free State and 
to give the gospel to the adventurous settlers. It is difficult 
to bring into a single view the work of the half-dozen confer¬ 
ences that at different times have occupied different parts of 
the State. We are now in the period in which the Missionary 
Board takes the leading place in opening up and supporting 
missionary work. We must begin with the lone missionary. 
The Missionary Board, at its meeting in June, 1854, ordered 
“that a mission be established in Kansas Territory, west of 
the Missouri conference, and, that Rev. S. S. Snyder, of the 
Allegheny conference, be appointed to said mission.” It 
might be said that Josiah Terrel, who was sent out the year 
before to the mission in southwestern Missouri, had made 
some incursions into what became the State of Kansas. S. S. 
Snyder reached his field in October, 1854, and W. A. Cardwell, 
who had been appointed in February, 1855, by the executive 
committee, as a missionary to Kansas, entered his field in 
May, 1855. John Gingerich was appointed missionary to 
Kansas, in July, 1855, and arrived at the mission in August, 
1855. In November, 1854, the Missouri conference voted to 
receive S. S. Snyder subject to his transfer, the expectation 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


759 


being that he would locate in southern Kansas. Mr. Snyder's 
choice of northern Kansas as a location was approved at the 
next meeting of the board. In 1855, S. S. Snyder and J. Gin- 
gerich attended the session of the Missouri conference in 
Jasper county, Missouri. The Missouri conference met 
November 29,1856, at the house of S. S. Snyder, near Lawrence, 
Bishop Edwards presiding. The preaching services were in 
Lawrence. Bishop Edwards wrote: “This is a small mission 
conference, composed of our three missionaries in Kansas and 
four in southwestern Missouri." 

In 1856, on Lawrence mission, as the first mission was 
called, there were ten appointments, three classes, and forty 
members. At Prairie City, a small house of worship was 
under construction. Mr. Snyder wrote: “Brother Gingerich 
and myself have been quarrying stone and helping the brethren 
get the house under headway." Mr. Cardwell, in April, 1857, 
reported a church building, to cost $1200, as under construction 
at Big Springs, where he had become located, and another 
church building as begun at Tecumseh. In 1857, there were also 
reported churches as under construction in Lawrence and in 
Prairie City; but, as in 1859 only one church was reported, the 
claim of the Big Springs church as being the first church com¬ 
pleted in Kansas would seem to be valid. The Congregational 
church house in Lawrence, in which S. S. Snyder was per¬ 
mitted to preach, was built of sod. In 1855, besides Mr. Sny¬ 
der, there were four ministers in Lawrence, representing the 
Congregationalists, Wesleyans, and Unitarians. 

The General Conference of 1857, basing its action more 
on hope than upon past achievement, made the Kansas mission 
a mission conference. Bishop Edwards, the Bishop of the 
district, directed the Kansas conference and the Missouri con¬ 
ference to meet together The conference met at Prairie City, 
Douglas county, Kansas Territory, October 30, 1857. Mem¬ 
bers present were Bishop Edwards, W. A. Cardwell, J. S. 
Gingerich, and S. S. Snyder. Josiah Terrel, -of the Missouri 
mission, and residing at this time, in the Territory, was pre¬ 
vented by sickness from attending. At his request, he was 
recognized as a member. G. Perkins was received by transfer. 


760 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


A. M. Thornton, S. Kretzinger, A. Prescott, and William 
Huffman were made advisory members. The advisory mem¬ 
bers made motions and voted the same as actual members. 
It was ordered that the Missouri work falling to Kansas confer¬ 
ence, “including Sugar Mound, be constituted a mission called 
Fort Scott mission.” A committee of five was appointed “to 
receive proposals for donations toward erecting an institution 
of learning.” The work for the year was assigned as follows: 
S. S. Snyder, presiding elder; Tecumseh mission, W. A. Card- 
well; Big Springs, A. M. Thornton; Lawrence, S. Kretzinger; 
Prairie City, J. S. Gingerich; Upper Neosho, G. Perkins; Lower 
Neosho, N. Bixler; Fort Scott, J. Terrel; Ossawatomie, William 
Huffman. The number of members was 196, an increase of 95. 

October 8,1858, the conference met at Tecumseh, Kansas. 
All the original missionaries were present, S. S. Snyder, W. A. 
Cardwell, J. S. Gingerich from the north, and G. Perkins and 
Josiah Terrel from the Southwestern Missouri mission, which 
now was practically absorbed by the Kansas conference. 
N. Bixler, H. A. Bell, J. Lamb, S. Kretzinger, H. Huston, 
William Huffman, H. Denham, and A. Prescott were received 
on their transfers. S. G. Elliot was admitted to the confer¬ 
ence. The statistics showed 46 appointments, 20 classes, 314 
members, and one meeting house. The meeting house was 
at Fort Scott. Later reports stated that the church houses 
at Lawrence and Prairie City had been lost, and that those of 
Big Springs and Tecumseh were only the “bodies of houses.” 
In 1864, the number of members reported was 905. When 
we take into account the border ruffianism of the fifties, and 
the bloody acts in the time of the Civil War, we can hardly 
wonder that progress was so slow. 

S. S. Snyder was a man of strong convictions and great 
force of character. His preparation for his work was much 
beyond what was usual for the times. He fearlessly opposed 
the introduction of slavery into Kansas at a time when even 
to be known as a Northerner was to be exposed to be shot 
down. He was shot ruthlessly in his own barnyard by two 
of Quantrell’s raiders, sent to take his life, in connection with 
the massacre at Lawrence, August 25, 1863, in which 145 of 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


761 


the inhabitants of Lawrence were slain. W. A. Cardwell 
lived long to render valiant service in Kansas. He was a man 
of rough exterior and plain speech, but withal of a tender heart. 
He was a man of great patience and courage. A man that 
could take his family in a wagon drawn by oxen, or cattle as 
he called them, from Indiana to Kansas, as conditions were in 
early days, would not be turned from his course by ordinary 
hardships. Rifles were pointed at his breast, he was shot at, 
but never swerved from his course. Though spoken of as 
illiterate, he did not hesitate to preach before scholars and 
those in high places. He was the unrelenting foe of slavery, 
the whiskey traffic, and all forms of sin. He closed his earthly 
course with great peace and joy, March 31, 1903. In the year 
before his death, in lines penned by him, he revealed a tender¬ 
ness of heart and spiritual vision that would not have been 
surmised by those that looked into the face of this Christian 
warrior a half century before. He wrote: “l have had the 
richest religious experience of my life, the last year. No 
tongue nor language known in this world can describe the joy 
of the inner man when everything earthly is given up, and the 
glories of the world unseen by mortal eyes come in as clear 
view to the mind as any scenery of earth to natural vision in 
open day.” 

From 1857 to 1869, Kansas conference was bounded by 
the State lines. In 1869, the part of the state south of the 
thirty-eighth parallel, including about three tiers of counties, 
and all of the State of Missouri south of the Missouri river, 
became a new conference under the name of Osage (orNeosho). 
As if to compensate Kansas conference, it was given for the 
next four years a large part of Nebraska south of the Platte 
river. In 1873, Kansas conference gave another tier of coun¬ 
ties to Osage conference. In 1877, the General Conference 
granted to Kansas conference the privilege of dividing its 
territory by a north and south line, running through the center 
of Republic county to the Osage conference line. The two 
conferences met in joint session August 6, 1879, at Clifton, 
Washington county. The Church membership of Kansas 
conference was given as 2164, and of West Kansas conference 


762 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


as 1389. Thus, Kansas conference sent out another thrifty 
shoot. 

The secretary of the new conference was C. U. McKee. 
E. Shepherd and J. Knight were made presiding elders. In 
1881, the Kansas part of the Osage conference was divided, 
about three-fourths of the western part of the territory going 
to form the Arkansas Valley conference, and the remainder 
bearing the name Osage conference. Thus, there was a con¬ 
ference for each of the four corners of the State. After the 
setting off of the West Kansas conference in 1879, the position 
and boundaries of the Kansas conference remained substan¬ 
tially unchanged down to 1909, when the conference was 
united with the Northwest Kansas conference to form the 
North Kansas conference. The change of its name in 1901, 
to Northeast Kansas conference did not signify a change of 
territory. In 1879, its church membership numbered 2164, 
and in 1909 the number was 3966. The other partner of this 
union, the Northwest Kansas conference, met this number 
with a membership of 5731. 

The name of Solomon Weaver stands out with prominence 
in connection with the founding of Lane University. Two 
retired ministers of Kansas conference, held in high esteem for 
their long and faithful service, are J. H. Snyder and G. M. 
Huffman. The former became a member of the Illinois con¬ 
ference in 1866. He transferred to Arkansas Valley confer¬ 
ence in 1881, and to the Kansas conference in 1891. From 
1885 to 1909, he was the secretary of the General Conference. 
G. M. Huffman became a member of the Kansas conference 
in 1869, and his membership has remained unchanged. Both 
the measure and the quality of his service have been of a high 
order. F. M. Testerman, M. L. Robey, and E. E. McAferty, 
representatives of the old Kansas conference, are yet in the 
thick of the conflict. Among the laymen we should not fail 
to notice Matt Edmunds, who long served the conference and 
the Church in so many ways, but also held an honored place 
in the senate of Kansas. As the outcome of sixty years of toil, 
sacrifice and heroic adventure, under the direction and blessing 
of God, all of the conferences in Kansas became one in 1914, 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


763 


according to the decisions of the previous year. The Church 
membership reported was 18,915. The Church has gathered 
wisdom and strength through the years. With the rural work 
of the past conserved and strengthened, and the increased 
establishment of the Church in towns and cities, a great prospect 
is open to the enlarged Kansas conference. 

Northwest Kansas Conference. 

We have noticed the different conferences as they entered 
on their separate ways. We now notice the streams as they 
come together in a common channel. The more direct stream, 
though not the largest, we have followed already. The West 
Kansas conference, as it first was called, entered on its course 
in 1879. It had all of the advantages and disadvantages of a 
newly-settled country. It was with a true Christian chivalry 
that the preachers entered on their work. It may be said, 
too, that results were better conserved than in the first ad¬ 
vances in some other parts of the Church. Church buildings 
were erected, and the towns, as well as country places, were 
occupied. Of the members present at the first conference in 
1879, mention may be made of E. Shepherd, J. Knight, C. U. 
McKee, F. R. S. Byrd, J. H. Bloyd, G. W. Miller, I. W. Bearss, 
W. C. Lewis, J. E. French, M. Jennings, L. D. Wimmer, 
D. Boone, J. J. Burch, D. Brookhart, I. W. Williams, J. Mc- 
Millen, and T. C. Hahn. When the preachers went out to 
their charges, they reported only 752 members found. The 
first church houses were rude structures of sod or logs, which 
soon needed to be replaced with something more commodious 
and enduring. In 1880, steps were taken to found Gould 
College, at Harlan. For six years, fair success was attained. 
When financial considerations led to the giving up of this 
school, the conference cooperated with Lane University, and 
then with Central College, and later with Campbell College. 
C. U. McKee served thirteen years as presiding elder, and 
represented his conference at five sessions of the General Con¬ 
ference. J. McMillen and E. R. Baber stood next in terms of 
service in both of these relations. The names of the faithful 
and self-sacrificing heralds of the cross through the thirty-one 


764 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


years of the history of this conference may be unrecorded or 
fade away on the earth side, but their record is on high. 

Neosho Conference. 

Osage conference is the name with which we begin, though 
we change the name to Neosho in 1885. The first division of 
Kansas conference territory was in 1869, when a little more 
than three tiers of counties from the south part of the state 
were joined with all of Missouri south of the Missouri river. 
The name Osage is suggestive of the large area of lands that 
had been obtained by treaty with the Indians, and was at this 
time being occupied by settlers, many of them living in rude 
cabins, and drawing from their farms only the scantiest sub¬ 
sistence. It was an opportune moment for the United Breth¬ 
ren evangelists, provided only that they suited themselves to 
the condition of the people, and then adapted themselves to 
conditions that were soon to be. The latter they did not fully 
do, and thus lost much of the fruits of their labor. 

The first session of Osage conference was held at Greeley, 
Anderson county, Kansas, April 16, 1870. There were eight 
charter members from Kansas conference, among the number 
being S. E. Cormany and J. S. Gingerich. Among others 
coming by transfer were J. R. Evans, from Illinois conference, 
and D. Wenrich, from Missouri conference. A second session 
was held November 17, in the same year. 

In 1873, another tier of counties in Kansas was added. 
In 1881, the conference gave up its Missouri territory, and in 
1893 its southern boundary was extended to the south line of 
the Indian Territory. In 1905, it contented itself with holding 
the southeast part of Kansas, and in 1913, voted to give up its 
distinct identity as a conference. Many were reluctant to 
enter into the State-wide organization. The motion to unite 
had a majority of but three votes. Its last reported statistics, 
those of 1913, showed a Church membership of 4103. J. R. 
Chambers, at the last session, was elected secretary for the 
thirty-third time. G. E. Bertch was elected conference super¬ 
intendent for the sixth time. N. L. Vezie, among others that 
might be named, performed a worthy part in the building up 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


765 


of the conference. R. H. Bennet, in the laity, labored helpfully 
in the work of the conference and of the Church. J. R. Evans 
and D. Wenrich are to be remembered among the early workers. 
So far as the conference itself is concerned, goodby to the old 
and hail to the new. 

Arkansas Valley Conference. 

The Arkansas Valley conference was formed in 1881 from 
the west part of the Osage conference. In 1893, it gave its 
western part toward forming the Southwest Kansas conference, 
but at the same time extended its southern boundary to Texas. 
In 1897, it was back within its old dimensions in the southwest 
corner of the state, and thus remained until its absorption by 
the State-wide Kansas conference, with the exception that its 
name was changed in 1905 to the Southwest Kansas conference. 
The Southwest Kansas conference, formed in 1893, existed but 
for a single quadrennium. 

In 1871, R. W. Parks, a member of the Osage conference, 
located a few miles west of where the town of Sedgwick now is. 
He found two United Brethren families, and formed a United 
Brethren class of six members, the first within the bounds of 
the conference He traveled on foot. In 1872, the Osage 
conference established Little River mission, within the present 
territory of the conference. D. Wenrich was the presiding 
elder and visited the work. In 1873, Walnut Valley mission 
was formed, with George Gay as the missionary. J. A. Coons 
came a little later. The first session of Arkansas Valley con¬ 
ference met near Sedgwick City, October 26, 1881, Bishop 
E. B. Kephart presiding. J. H. Snyder was made secretary. 
Members present were P. B. Lee, R. W. Parks, T. H. Watt, 
E. England, J. H. Snyder, William Friedly, G. Gay, R. W. 
Belknap, J. Guyer, E. Hill, A. E. Helm, I. A. Koons, W. H. 
Myers, J. H. McNew, A. Yeakle, I. Rollins, H. S. Riegel, 
C. H. Smith, and F. P. Lamb. Seven persons were received 
on transfer, J. H. Snyder being one of the number. P. B. Lee 
and T. H. Watt were elected presiding elders. The number 
of members at the end of the year was 1045. Twenty-four 
fields of labor were recognized, some of them left to be supplied 


766 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


with preachers. When, in 1913, Arkansas Valley conference, 
or Southwest Kansas conference, voted to join in a united 
state conference, the Church membership numbered 3272. 
Some of those that toiled and were charged with special re¬ 
sponsibilities in recent years were W. L. Hinshaw, J. R. Harner, 
C. A. Hendershot, and T. W. Perks. 

Nebraska Conference. 

In 1854, Nebraska was organized as a Territory. The 
following year, Henry Kumler, Jr., was sent by the Board of 
Missions to Nebraska as a missionary. In 1842, in his term 
as Bishop, he went as a missionary to the Maumee country, 
in Ohio and Indiana. In 1852, he was sent by the Miami 
conference as the first missionary to Southwestern Missouri. 
He made the long journey to Nebraska in a two-wheeled 
vehicle called a gig, and thus, at the start, had his way of 
conveyance for his new work. Omaha, eight or ten months 
old, was mainly an immigrant station, with about five hundred 
inhabitants. Mr. Kumler soon set out to explore, at places 
driving stakes across the prairie so that he might be able to 
follow the same way again. He sought clusters of settlers 
here and there, especially those where there might be a United 
Brethren family. Marauding Indians, pro-slavery prejudice, 
and other obstacles stood in the way. He established appoint¬ 
ments north and south of the Platte river, but as the Platte 
river could not be crossed it was necessary to cross the Missouri 
river below and above the mouth of the Platte in order to 
reach his appointments. He found United Brethren families 
in Iowa, and was able without great inconvenience to make 
and fill appointments in two counties in Iowa. He organized 
two societies in Iowa and one in Nebraska. He then returned 
to Ohio, as the purpose of his appointment was the establish¬ 
ment of the mission. P. P. Landon, G. Swain, and J. M. 
Dosh followed as missionaries. But, because of conditions as 
shown above, the mission made little progress. In 1855, 
Bishop Edwards was sent out to organize a conference. Oc¬ 
tober 23, he made this entry in his diary: “In Nebraska. Am 
to hold a conference, and only one member in it. Am to 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


767 


examine and license several, or reject them.” At the meeting 
of the Board of Missions in 1860, the corresponding secretary 
reported: “According to the request of the executive com¬ 
mittee, Bishop Edwards visited that work last fall and organ¬ 
ized the laborers into a conference.” The number of members 
was 109. D. K. Flickinger visited the mission in 1860, but 
despite all hopes and efforts the work did not prosper. In 
1862, the work in Iowa, called the Council Bluff’s mission, was 
turned over to the West Des Moines conference, and later 
that conference took charge of the work adjacent in Nebraska, 
while southern Nebraska was being occupied by the Kansas 
conference. In 1869, the General Conference formally at¬ 
tached districts in Nebraska north and south of the Platte 
river to these two conferences respectively. Thus, conditions 
continued until 1873, when the General Conference authorized 
the formation of the Nebraska conference. 

While the results of the work begun by the Board of 
Missions were not lost, the more direct establishing of the 
Church in Nebraska was by United Brethren families coming 
into Nebraska, by preachers raised up and entering the work 
here and there, and by the agency of the Kansas conference. 
Of the fourteen members of the Nebraska conference at its 
organization in 1873, eight came through the Kansas confer¬ 
ence, E. W. Johnson, S. Austin, and W. P. Caldwell, among the 
number. W. P. Caldwell, the preceding year, had been the 
presiding elder of the northwest district, which included the 
territory occupied in Nebraska. 

Nebraska conference was organized in the court house in 
Pleasant Hill, Saline county, Nebraska, October 30, 1873, 
Bishop Glossbrenner presiding. The members present were 
W. P. Caldwell, S. Austin, H. L. Spafford, Ives Marks, W. S. 
Spooner, J. McDougal, I. N. Martin, H. Ackaret, W. H. 
Sheperd, S. Cole, and E. W. Johnson. J. W. Ward, J. P. 
Elliot, and S. Fenton, though absent, were recognized as mem¬ 
bers. Twelve candidates were granted license. The statistics 
showed 694 members, an increase of 256, and two church 
houses. W. P. Caldwell and S. Austin, were chosen presiding 
elders. The charges to be served extended on both sides of 


768 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


the Platte river over a large part of Eastern Nebraska. Too 
much cannot be said of the labors of W. P. Caldwell, who may 
be called the father of the Nebraska conference. He came to 
Nebraska as a layman in 1865, but became so interested and 
occupied in seeking the spiritual welfare of the people that he 
yielded every other interest to become a preacher of the gospel 
in the needy field about him. He was so much one of the 
people that he had ready access to their hearts and homes. 

The growth of the conference was such that it was re¬ 
garded expedient to divide it, the General Conference having 
in 1877 referred to the matter of division to the decision of the 
conference. The East and West Nebraska conferences met in 
joint session at Fairbury, Nebraska, August 21, 1878. Thirty- 
five ministers, including W. P. Caldwell, S. Austin and E. W. 
Johnson, remained with the East Nebraska conference. The 
number of church members before the division was 2415. 

The charter members of the West Nebraska conference 
numbered nineteen. The church membership was given as 
656. Two church houses were reported. W. S. Spooner was 
chosen presiding elder of this new conference. At the session 
of West Nebraska conference, convening November 10, 1881, 
the Elkhorn mission district was constituted. Bishop Weaver 
appointed W. S. Spooner presiding elder over the same. It 
was afterward regarded as an annual conference. In 1884, 
it had before it the very serious question of founding an in¬ 
stitution of learning. By the General Conference of 1885, it 
and the Dakota conference were united, forming the Elkhorn 
and Dakota conference. In 1901, the name Elkhorn and 
Dakota was changed to North Nebraska. 

In 1913, the East Nebraska, West Nebraska, and North 
Nebraska conferences united to form one conference for Ne¬ 
braska and South Dakota. The statistics of 1912 gave a 
Church membership of 2701 for West Nebraska. For the 
United Nebraska conference, the membership numbered 6492 
in 1913, and 7701 in 1923. The recent conference superin¬ 
tendents have been S. M. Snider, W. 0. Jones, and A. P. 
Vannice. D. M. Harvey, a veteran of early Dakota days, 
died in 1923. York College now is the rallying center, and 



QUINCY ORPHANAGE AND HOME, QUINCY, PENNSYLVANIA 





MAIN BUILDING, OTTERBEIN HOME, LEBANON, OHIO 







ELIZABETH KUMLER MILLER SEMINARY, SIU LAM, CHINA 



RAMSBERG HOSPITAL, SIU LAM, CHINA 




























ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


769 


largely the hope of Nebraska conference. An outstanding 
layman in the conference is S. C. Caldwell, a son of the pioneer 
missionary. E. Harper, who joined the West Virginia confer¬ 
ence in 1864, and W. M. Buswell, who joined the Indiana 
conference in 1878, are among the retired ministers. With the 
rural strength of the conference conserved, and the continued 
extension of the work of the Church in cities and towns, 
Nebraska conference has a promising outlook. 

The Dakota mission conference was organized at Elk 
Point, South Dakota, August 25, 1871. A considerable part 
of its territory was in Iowa. In 1885, this was given up to 
the West Des Moines conference, at which time the Elkhorn 
and Dakota conferences were united. 

At the organization of the Dakota conference, the mem¬ 
bers were J. A. Potter, J. Morris, I. G. W. Chase, A. K. Curtis, 
J. Cotton, J. Lee, and J. D. Snyder, including those that re¬ 
ceived license at this time. The church membership numbered 
232. D. M. Harvey was one of the self-sacrificing toilers in 
this conference. 

Colorado Conference. 

The Colorado conference was directly a product of the 
Board of Missions. St. Clair Ross, sent by the Board in 1869, 
established a number of appointments. In 1872, there was 
one church building about twelve miles from Denver. In this 
church, the Colorado conference was organized April 15, 1872, 
Bishop Dickson presiding. The members present were St. 
Clair Ross, of Illinois conference, A. Hartzell, of Rock River 
conference, and W. H. McCormick, of Central Illinois confer¬ 
ence. E. J. Lamb, afterward long connected with the work 
in Colorado, was expected to be a member at the first, but 
was hindered for a time. There were 72 church members at 
this time. St. Clair Ross was made presiding elder, and given 
charge of Denver mission. A. Hartzell was appointed to 
Ralston mission, and W. H. McCormick, to Left Hand mission. 
One of the strong and well-equipped men coming to Colorado 
conference, and long laboring therein, was L. S. Cornell. He 
served the State of Colorado as superintendent of schools 


770 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


and in other ways. He died January 13, 1912. W. H. Mc¬ 
Cormick, a charter member of the conference and a leader 
and supporter in all of the work of the conference and the 
Church, lives at his home in Berthoud, maintaining his accus¬ 
tomed interest and activity, as far as able, in all of the work 
of the Church. A. Schwimley, and later J. N. Hanes and 
Allen Rhen contributed a valuable part to the work of the 
conference. Among recent leaders in the conference, F. P. 
Overmeyer and M. Nichols, the present superintendent, may 
be named. W. G. Schaeffer, who came to Colorado Springs 
in 1915 as the pastor, has given position and strength to the 
conference by adding to the membership of the congregation 
and the building of a splendid church at Colorado Springs. 
The present church membership in the conference is 1845. 

Oklahoma Conference. 

Oklahoma conference was developed from a district of the 
Arkansas Valley conference. The conference was organized 
February 9, 1898, in Eden chapel, near Perkins, Payne county, 
Oklahoma, Bishop Mills presiding. D. L. Doub and R. Adams 
were elected presiding elders. There were 27 fields of labor 
and about 1500 members. This was the most vigorous child 
born into the family of United Brethren conferences in a long 
time. The Territory itself went forward with a bound at 
'The opening of the strip” to settlers. In recent years, C. E. 
Heisel, C. M. Brooke, C. A. Hendershot, and Ira A. Holbrook, 
have been the pilots in the work in Oklahoma. In 1908, a 
North Texas conference was formed, including some territory 
in Oklahoma. In the building up of this conference, C. A. 
Schlotterbeck was the accomplished scout. In this field, the 
membership reached 676. But, in 1913, the field was yielded 
to the Oklahoma conference, and in the same year, Mr. Schlot¬ 
terbeck became the first superintendent in the New Mexico 
conference. The church membership in the Oklahoma confer¬ 
ence in 1923 numbered 3242. 

New Mexico Conference. 

The work of the Church in New Mexico and adjacent 
parts has been both evangelistic and educational. Following 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


771 


the stream of immigration, societies were established in New 
Mexico, north Texas, and adjacent territory in Oklahoma. 
But the special interest of the work in New Mexico is educa¬ 
tional. The condition of the Spanish-American people was 
such that both patriotic and religious considerations called 
for the proper education of the people. A few months before 
the General Conference of 1913, property was bought at 
Velarde, New Mexico, by the Home Mission board, and a day 
school and a Sunday school established. Later, a second 
school was established at Santa Cruz, about sixteen miles 
distant. Following the General Conference of 1917, a school 
was established at Alcalde, half way between the other two 
places. Here a commodious school building was completed 
in November, 1920. School buildings, boys’ and girls’ dormi¬ 
tories, and missionary residences, substantial and well adapted 
for their purposes, have been erected. J. R. Overmiller is 
the superintendent of the New Mexico conference, the super¬ 
visor over three schools, and the pastor for the Santa Cruz 
charge. In the employ of the schools, there are eight teachers 
and four matrons. The schools are working a transformation 
in widely-extended communities. The Church membership in 
the New Mexico conference numbers 244. Four itinerants are 
employed. The conference was in process of formation from 
1913 to 1915. 

Montana Conference. 

Shortly after the General Conference of 1909, mission¬ 
aries were sent to open up work in Montana and western 
North Dakota. About the middle of the following quadren- 
nium, a mission district was formed. If the name, the “Em¬ 
pire State,” had not previously been appropriated, Montana, 
from its size and resources as well, should have that name. 
It was filling up rapidly with home seekers from all parts of 
the country, some United Brethren among them. But these 
were not simply to be sought out and cared for, but through 
them, as one important means, the blessings of the gospel 
were to be carried to many others in this new West, the last 
that was to be. The work in Montana was the last 
link in reaching the Coast conferences. As usual, there were 


772 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


slow beginnings and some disappointments. But efforts were 
renewed with increasing success. At length, it was deemed 
advisable to organize a conference for the better conducting 
of the work. Accordingly, Bishop Weekley and C. Whitney, 
the home missionary secretary, were sent to survey the field, 
and November 17, 1911, at Beach, North Dakota, the Mon¬ 
tana mission conference was organized. The secretary men¬ 
tions that it was on Friday, but that is not to be taken as 
significant. Members present were W. C. Adams, E. J. Reed, 
and M. S. Bovey. A. E. Landis was kept away by sickness. 
This is the first case in which lay delegates are mentioned as 
participating in the organization of a conference. C. A. 
Burkeland, of Beach, North Dakota, Mrs. E. A. Reed, of 
Shields, North Dakota, and B. Douglas, of Carlisle, Montana, 
are thus mentioned. B. Douglas was called the lay bishop of 
Montana, both because of his spiritual leadership and because 
of his encouragement and help to the preachers. S. E. Surface 
and Ira Hawley were granted license to preach. Five missions 
were recognized, and two new missions were projected. There 
were reported to the conference 157 members, one church 
house, and two parsonages. Due to crop failures and other 
unfavorable conditions, the work in Montana has been much 
hindered, but the self-sacrificing missionaries, with the support 
of a faithful laity, have stayed by their tasks, not doubting 
the larger success that finally must come. The present church 
membership is 842. G. L. Stine and L. 0. Blake, the alert 
conference superintendents since 1915, have done much to 
carry forward the work, and to hold to it the interest and 
support of the Church at large. 

Oregon Conference. 

The General Conference in 1841 constituted the “Parent 
Missionary Society” for the two-fold purpose of carrying the 
gospel to the “heathen” in foreign lands, and to the people 
of the frontiers of our own country. Almost the only act to 
be credited to this society was the promoting of a mission to 
Oregon in 1853, under the leadership of T. J. Connor, as al¬ 
ready described. In harmony with an act of the General 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


773 


Conference of 1853, the Oregon annual conference was organ¬ 
ized August 30, 1855, in Linn county, Oregon. The members 
present were T. J. Connor, J. Kenoyer, M. M. Crow, and 
B. Lichtenthaler. P. C. Parker was recognized as a member, 
and R. Price was given license to preach. T. J. Connor was 
an able and energetic man. J. Kenoyer was the grandson of 
J. G. Pfrimmer, and by birth and choice he was committed 
to pioneer work. These two men were long the center and 
chief dependence of the work in Oregon. On their privations 
and struggles, we need not dwell. Much faithful effort was 
bestowed, but at times there was discord within as well as 
difficulty without. The presence of D. Shuck as Bishop of the 
Pacific Coast district from 1864 to 1869 was a great blessing 
and help. In the time when the secrecy question was so 
prominent, almost every influence was used to commit the 
Church in Oregon to the radical side, and when the division 
came in 1889 more than half of the strength of the conference 
went to that side. Local contentions and suits in the courts, 
brought things to such a condition that new beginnings in 
many ways were necessary. Bishop Hott’s decisive course 
and the favorable decisons of the courts laid the foundation 
for larger and better things. The present Church membership 
is 1935. Oregon conference includes all of the State of Oregon, 
and the coast section of the State of Washington. 

There are hopeful features, indicating that the days of 
shifting populations and transient preachers in Oregon are in a 
measure past, that the United Brethren Church is being given 
more and more a recognized place, and that the time of en¬ 
largement is at hand. The four churches in Portland, with 
their present and contemplated modern church buildings, and 
such opportunities and achievements as those at Seattle, 
Everett, Vancouver, and Philomath, point to continued and 
sustained progress. The different agencies and factors that 
make for advancement are becoming more and more articulated 
and effective. G. E. McDonald has been the energetic con¬ 
ference superintendent since 1916. C. C. Bell should be 
named among the faithful workers that have passed on. 


774 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


The Coast conferences have been so much dependent on 
the older parts of the Church that the presence and cooperation 
of the Bishops that have visited them or been located among 
them have been a great help to them. Bishop Castle, by his 
active service and long residence, was a great support and 
constant benediction. Bishops Hott, Mills, and Bell, through 
their characteristic abilities and devotion, each contributed to 
giving position and forward impulse to the work of the Church. 
It now devolves on Bishop Washinger, at present in charge, 
to use the abilities that he so markedly showed in his superin¬ 
tendency in Pennsylvania, in mobilizing and integrating all 
of the forces and resources available for a further advance in 
all of the conference districts on the Coast. 

Columbia River Conference. 

Much that has been said with reference to the Oregon 
conference applies equally in regard to the Columbia River 
conference. It was formed by a division of the Oregon confer¬ 
ence. It was organized at the time of the session of the Oregon 
conference, beginning September 18, 1865, near Vancouver, 
Washington Territory. It included the part of Washington 
Territory north and east of the Cascade range. It was called, 
up to 1873, the Cascade conference; then, to 1893, the Walla 
Walla conference; and, afterward, the Columbia River confer¬ 
ence. Besides Bishop Shuck, the members present were 
J. Kenoyer, S. S. Caston, and 0. Osbum. D. E. Towers, not 
present, was recognized as a member J. J. Gallaher, while 
not at this time a member, was made secretary. The progress 
of the conference has at no time been rapid, and it has had its 
periods of decline. From 1888 to 1898, the church membership 
passed a number of times the one thousand mark. The 
membership in 1923 was 783. Two of the most useful of the 
deceased ministers were J. J. Gallaher and J. S. Rhoads. The 
cities in which there is the most successful work are Spokane, 
Walla Walla, and Elberton. Since 1909, W. A. Nichols has 
been the conference superintendent. It scarcely needs to be 
said that all of the annual conferences of the Pacific Coast 
district are vitally connected with Philomath College. 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


775 


California Conference. 

The Board of Missions, at its session in May, 1858, 
commissioned Israel Sloane as its first missionary to California. 
His ability and fitness as a missionary had been proved by 
four years of successful missionary work in Canada. Having 
some means of his own, he relieved the board of the expense 
of his transportation to his new field. In the first forty days 
after reaching California, he preached twenty-three times. 
By good fortune or fate, the two invitations or openings for 
work were in the neighborhood of Sacramento, and in Hum¬ 
boldt county, over the Cascade range, three hundred miles 
distant. Some United Brethren preachers, or persons that 
soon became such, anticipated Mr. Sloane's arrival by a num¬ 
ber of years. J. W. and James Harrow, C. W. Gillette, and 
D. Thompson arrived in 1849, and J. Ackerson and B. B. Allen 
arrived in 1850. These and some others were the helpers that 
Mr. Sloane enlisted in the work that he came to form and 
direct. With capable and consecrated leadership, their help 
was valuable, but, without such leadership, their efforts were 
uncertain or futile. Soon the success was such as to en¬ 
courage the formation of an annual conference. The con¬ 
ference was organized January 16,1861, at the house of D. Trox- 
el. The members present were Israel Sloane, presiding, 
D. Troxel, D. Thompson, and J. Dollar hide. Sloane was 
made presiding elder and assigned to Dry Creek mission, 
including "all above Sacramento City.” J. Dollarhide was 
placed on Yolo and Solano mission, "all west of Sacramento 
river,” and D. Thompson, on Sacramento mission. The 
General Conference, which met in May, 1861, recognized Cali¬ 
fornia conference as a mission conference. The second session 
of the conference was held in Sloane’s schoolhouse, in Yolo 
county, September 13,1862. Members present were I. Sloane, 
B. B. Allen, A. Musselman, W. Dresser, D. Thompson, and 
J. Dollarhide. Sloane and Musselman were elected presiding 
elders; Sloane being placed over the Humboldt district, and 
Musselman over the Sacramento valley district. Mr. Sloane 
accepted the most distant and difficult field, taking his family 
by way of the trail over the mountains. The next summer, he 


776 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


learned that the work about Sacramento was not going well, 
and, having responsibility over the entire work, he started on 
horseback for the Sacramento field. His horse was disabled 
on the way, and the one that he secured to take its place be¬ 
came uncontrollable in going down the mountain and threw 
him violently to the ground, causing fatal injuries. The story 
of his being found insensible, his being tenderly cared for with 
some hope of his recovery, his being taken at length around by 
boat to Eureka near his home, where his wife met him, and his 
death the same day, August 31, 1863—all this is too pathetic 
and long to relate. He gave directions as to his family. In 
regard to the work of the Church in California, he said to his 
wife, who was deeply interested in the work and very capable: 
“All of my spiritual interests I leave in your care through 
Christ. If you can use any argument to get some one here to 
take full charge of the work, do it.” 

Mr. Sloane was born June 18, 1825. From 1843 to 1845, 
he was a student in Oberlin College, and later was a student 
in Otterbein University. He became an efficient pastor in 
Scioto conference. At his death, he was in the thirty-ninth 
year of his age, and the sixteenth year of his ministry. The 
death of Mr. Sloane brought great discouragement to the 
workers. No session of the conference was held in 1863. In 
1864, D. Shuck, who had been elected Bishop for the Pacific 
Coast in 1861, after being hindered long by the war, succeeded 
in reaching California. Meanwhile, the Harrow brothers and 
some others had done what they could to keep the work alive. 
If anyone could take Mr. Sloane’s place, that one was Bishop 
Shuck. While his activities and responsibilities were not con¬ 
fined to California, yet here he bestowed the large share of his 
efforts. The ministers were called to meet in conference at 
the Monument schoolhouse, in Yolo county, November 11, 
1864. The members present were D. Shuck, B. B. Allen, 
J. Dollarhide, David Eby, and N. Hubbard. Those received 
at the session were J. B. Hamilton, E. A. McAlister, J. W. 
Harrow, N. W. Harrow, C. W. Gillette, and J. H. Babcock. 
A. Musselman, W. Dresser, and D. Thompson were recorded 
as absent. The California conference dates its sessions from 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


777 


the organization effected in 1864. In the four years following, 
Mr. Shuck’s second term as Bishop, there was a gradual in¬ 
crease in the number of preachers and Church members. The 
number of Church members in 1868 was 198. There was 
then but one church building. For a number of years little 
progress was made. The coming and going of the preachers, 
the shifting of the population, and the prevailing secular 
atmosphere may afford some explanation. Bishop Shuck, 
after an absence of nine years, returned in 1878 to take up 
regular work. Because of dissatisfaction over the revision of 
the Constitution and Confession of Faith, eight ministers and 
two or three hundred of the church members withdrew from 
the Church in 1889. Though some good members thus were 
lost, the conditions were supplied by the changes taking place 
at this time for a sounder and less hampered advance. At 
this time, too, a movement set in toward occupying more 
fully the field of Southern California. In 1884, Los Angeles 
mission included some rural points about Los Angeles. Yet, in 
1885, there was no organized class in that city. In 1891, E. A. 
Starkey was placed in charge of the Los Angeles mission. 
The Young People’s society of the Church pledged $5,000 
toward a church building. October 25, of that year, he 
organized a small class. He died of typhoid fever October 27, 
1893, having resigned the charge a little while before. J. S. 
Pitman followed as pastor, and under his leadership the mission 
came to be well established Later, as the business of the city 
encroached on the location of the church, the property was 
sold for a good price, and the proceeds were used to secure a 
more desirable church plant, and to assist some of the new 
missions that were struggling to establish themselves. United 
Brethren families from the older parts of the Church had much 
to do with the beginnings that looked toward better things. 
Now, four churches in Los Angeles, and churches at San Diego, 
Santa Ana, Riverside, and other places occupy a field that 
stood blank, so far as the United Brethren Church was con¬ 
cerned, a few years ago. Sacramento was the first city in the 
older part of the conference territory to be entered. Later, 
much effort was bestowed on the establishing of the Church 


778 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


in Stockton and Oakland, with varying success. The present 
Church membership of the conference is 2529. The conference 
cooperates with Philomath College, and is closely bound in 
interest and support to the Baker Home for retired ministers. 
Among the retired ministers that have by long service built 
themselves into the success of the conference are F. Fisher and 
J. L. Field. Among those deceased that were long and closely 
connected with the work of the conference, D. D. Hart and 
T. J. Bauder may be named. Since 1915, the conference 
superintendents have been H. H. Haller, J. A. Eby, L. S. Wood¬ 
ruff, L. Harter, H. A. Dowling, and J. L. Parks, the present 
superintendent. H. C. Shaffer, the pastor of First Church, 
Los Angeles, has been a leader and builder, both in the Oregon 
and the California conferences. Mark Keppel is an outstand¬ 
ing layman in the conference and in the Church. His duties 
as superintendent of the schools of Los Angeles county do not 
hold him back from a generous share in church work. 

An unusual feature belonging to the annual conferences 
of the Pacific district is the taking of “conference Sunday sub¬ 
scriptions.” Sums are solicited from individuals and congre¬ 
gations through the year to be reported on conference Sunday, 
in the respective annual conferences. The amount received 
is divided, one-fourth going to the permanent preachers’ aid 
fund, and three-fourths going to the conference extension fund. 
The plan is to open up a new source for meeting imperative 
needs, and to bring about a fuller sharing in resources and 
benefits. If a warm and living conference spirit can be brought 
to the support of the plan, it certainly will produce great good. 

Ohio German Conference. 

In a church that was wholly German at the beginning, 
there is now one German conference in a total of thirty-two 
conferences in the United States, and in this conference the 
membership is less than one-half of one per cent of the total 
membership of the Church. It may be said, that, outside of 
the German conference, there are German-speaking congrega¬ 
tions. It may be replied that in the German conference, 
there are English-speaking congregations, and outside of these, 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


779 


many English-speaking members. Yet there should be a 
generous appreciation of the German part of the Church by the 
English part, both because of what it represents of the past 
and what it is in itself; and further, because of the field for 
work yet remaining among the Germans of our country. Be¬ 
tween 1825 and 1840, the Church became prevailingly English. 
German continued to be used extensively in church services, 
especially in Eastern Pennsylvania, but no provisions were 
made for work distinctively German. Such work as there was, 
was mainly among the Pennsylvania Germans, though later 
the Missionary Board urged the taking up of work among im¬ 
migrants coming directly from Germany. To a certain extent 
such work was begun early in some new German settlements 
in Southeastern Ohio. In 1835, at the prompting of William 
Hanby, Dewalt Mechlin and Lewis Kramer made appoint¬ 
ments in some of these settlements. From this source came 
some of the most capable and useful preachers for the years 
that followed. We should not overlook the efforts of the 
annual conferences to establish German missions here and 
there, and the fact that the General Conference authorized 
the establishment of a German periodical in 1841. Through 
efforts in these various lines, the German work was assuming 
such promise as led the General Conference of 1853 to author¬ 
ize the formation of a German conference 

Accordingly, the Ohio German conference was organized 
at Germantown, Ohio, October 20, 1853, Bishop Edwards 
presiding. Bishop Edwards, in reporting the session said: 
“Brother Niesc was elected chairman—not as is usual to assist, 
but to act as president with what little assistance I could give, 
and Brother Mast, secretary.” 

Those present at this initial session were H. Staub, J. 
Scholler, J. Roth, J. Valkel, J. Schwab, J. Crider, M. Botten- 
berg, J. Blauch, J. A. Mast, C. Flinchbaugh, and C. Ehret. 
Peter Schmidt and J. Creits were absent. George Baker and 
David Adams were received. J. Crider and J. Scholler were 
made presiding elders. Appointments were made as follows: 
Cincinnati mission, to be supplied; Pleasant Ridge circuit, 
C. Ehret; Dayton mission, H. Staub; New Albany, Indiana, 


780 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


mission, J. A. Mast; Circleville circuit, J. Roth; Greenville 
mission, J. Valkel; Beaver circuit, J. Scholler; Fulton mission, 
J. Blauch and F. Schwab. As time passed, missions were 
established in Kentucky and Nebraska, as well as in Ohio, 
Indiana, and Illinois. To the three states last named the work 
of the conference is now confined. The conference now has 
two churches in Chicago, three in Cincinnati, three in Cleve¬ 
land, two in Dayton, one in Hamilton, one in Zanesville, one 
in Toledo, one in Batavia, one in Freelandsville, Indiana, and 
one in Danville, Illinois, with a combined membership of 1687. 

Some of the prominent ministers of the past were W. Mit- 
tendorf, J. A. Sand, L. W. Craumer, E. Light, E. Lorenz, 
G. Fritz and J. C. Bremer. Some of these have already 
received notice. Retired ministers that have given long 
service are C. Streich, A. Schmidt, J. Sick, J. Assel and J. F. 
Schwab. The present superintendents are J. G. Luechauer 
and E. J. Wegner. Since the German papers were given over 
to the Ohio German conference by the General Conference, 
with a subsidy from the Publishing House, A. Schmidt and 
G. W. Kopittke have successively been the editors. In most 
of the churches, preaching is wholly or in part in English. At 
present, the work of the conference is in a more encouraging 
condition than for a number of years past. The fact that 
there is an evident field for these German workers gives them 
courage and resolution in meeting the difficult tasks and 
situations that belong to the German work. The ministers 
and members of no other conference are more loyal to every 
interest of the Church than are those of the Ohio German 
conference. Eugene Schaefer, is to be named among the 
active and efficient laymen. From 1861 to 1865, there was an 
Indiana German conference, but the entire field is now occupied 
by the Ohio German conference. The East German conference 
has already been noticed. It may be added that, in 1857, 
Henry Kumler, Jr., was elected German Bishop, but resigned, 
J. Russel being elected in his place, and that in 1861 Henry 
Kumler, Jr., again was elected, and served through the quad- 
rennium. Since that time, no Bishop has been elected for the 
German work. 


ANNUAL CONFERENCES 


781 


Discontinued Conferences 

Ontario conference was organized April 19, 1856, at 
Beverly chapel, Sheffield, Canada, Bishop Glossbrenner pre¬ 
siding, and was discontinued in harmony with action of the 
General Conference of 1905. In 1854, at the same meeting of 
the Board of Missions at which it was resolved to establish a 
mission in Africa, it was resolved to send a missionary to 
Canada. Israel Sloane, of Scioto conference fortunately was 
selected as the missionary. But before this time there were 
index fingers pointing toward Canada. German families from 
Eastern Pennsylvania had moved up into Canada a short 
distance beyond Niagara Falls. J. Erb, of the Old conference 
in the East, was given appointment to Canada in 1825. Regu¬ 
larly from 1832 to 1836 appointments were made to Canada. 
In 1827 and 1837 appointments were made to New York, the 
work in New York and Canada being included as one. The 
later work probably received no great advantage from this 
earlier work. In 1826, Bishop Newcomer had visited the 
country. 

In 1855, Peter Flack and C. E. Price, and, in 1856, Rudolph 
Light, were sent as co-workers with Mr. Sloane. The result 
was the organization of a conference with eight ordained 
preachers and one licensed preacher. The members and 
preachers secured in Canada proved faithful and ready to give 
practical support to the work in every way. Some excellent 
preachers were raised up, some of whom came over the line 
to render good service in the United States. Of course, there 
were difficulties to meet and hardships to be endured. In 
1905, when the territory was relinquished, the statistics 
showed 17 itinerants, 7 local preachers and 1474 members. 
The movement for the union of churches in Canada assumed 
such force that the Ontario conference asked, through its 
representatives in the General Conference, that it have the 
privilege of uniting with the Congregationalists of Canada. 
With great reluctance, the request was granted. 

The conference in Germany was discontinued because of 
the persistent hostility of the Bavarian government, and the 
lack of resources to meet the requirements of an enlarged work 


782 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


in Germany. The conditions in the case already have been 
set forth. 

The Massachusetts conference both was and was not. 
The Board of Missions and the Bishops hardly acknowledged 
that they had given sanction to it as a conference, and yet, if 
it had succeeded, there would have been no question as to the 
sanction given it. The want of success was due to the staid 
ways of New England. The effort bestowed and the money 
expended were deserving of a different result. 

Some Southern conferences whose names were at one 
time or another on the roll of conferences were more imaginary 
than real. From 1896 to 1913, a Chickamauga conference 
was recognized. Its territory was ‘Tennessee and the country 
south/' It was exclusively for colored people. It was rather 
a hope than a realization. The Louisiana conference was 
organized in 1901. Immigration from the North led to efforts 
to establish the Church in Louisiana. R. W. Wilgus was sent 
as presiding elder. Good societies were established at some 
points. Jennings and Roanoke were the chief centers. Some 
good laborers were sent to this field. W. L. Childress was 
one of these faithful workers. In 1923 no report was made 
from this field. The disappearance of some conference names 
in the South was due to a rearrangement of conference districts. 


PART V 


HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES 

BISHOPS 

1800—1813, William Otterbein (died, 1813) and Martin Boehm (died, 1812). 

1813— 1814, Christian Newcomer. 

1814— 1817, Christian Newcomer. 

1817—1821, Christian Newcomer and Andrew Zeller. 

1821—1825, Christian Newcomer and Joseph Hoffman. 

1825—1829, Christian Newcomer and Henry Kumler, Sr. 

1829—1833, Christian Newcomer (died, 1830) and Henry Kumler, Sr. 

1833—1837, Henry Kumler, Sr., Samuel Hiestand and William Brown. 

1837—1841, Henry Kumler, Sr., Samuel Hiestand (died, 1838), and Jacob Erb. 

1841—1845, Henry Kumler, Sr., Jacob Erb. Henry Kumler, Jr., and John Coons. 

1845—1849, John Russel, J. J. Glossbrenner, and William Hanby. 

1849—1853, J. J. Glossbrenner, Jacob Erb, and David Edwards. 

1853—1857, J. J. Glossbrenner, David Edwards, and Lewis Davis. 

1857—1861, J. J. Glossbrenner, David Edwards, Lewis Davis, and John Russel. 

1861—1865, J. J. Glossbrenner, David Edwards, Jacob Markwood, Daniel Shuck, and Henry 
Kumler, Jr. 

1865—1869, J. J. Glossbrenner, David Edwards, Jacob Markwood, Jonathan Weaver, and 
Daniel Shuck. 

1869—1873, J. J. Glossbrenner, David Edwards, Jonathan Weaver, and John Dickson. 

1873—1877, J. J. Glossbrenner, David Edwards (died, 1876), Jonathan Weaver, and John 
Dickson. 

1877—1881, J. J. Glossbrenner, Jonathan Weaver, John Dickson, Milton Wright, and Nicholas 
Castle. 

1881—1885, J. J. Glossbrenner, Jonathan Weaver, John Dickson, Nicholas Castle and E. B. 
Kephart,. 

1885—1889, Jonathan Weaver, N. Castle, J. Dickson, E. B. Kephart, M. Wright and D. K. 

Flickinger, and J. J. Glossbrenner, emeritus (died, 1887). 

1889—1893, Jonathan Weaver, N. Castle, J. Dickson, E. B. Kephart, and J. W. Hott. 

1893—1901, N. Castle, E. B. Kephart', J. W. Hott, J. S. Mills, and Jonathan Weaver, emeritus 
(died, 1901). 

1901—1905, N. Castle, E. B. Kephart, J. W. Hott (died. 1902), G. M. Mathews (filled unex¬ 
pired term), and J. S. Mills. 

1905 —1909, J. S. Mills, G. M. Mathews, W. M. Weekley, W. M. Bell, T. C. Carter, N. Castle, 
emeritus, and E. B. Kephart, emeritus (died, 1906). 

1909 —1913, J. S. Mills (died, 1909), G. M. Mathews, W. M. Weekley, W. M. Bell, T. C. 
Carter, and N. Castle, emeritus. 

1913 —1917, G. M. Mathews, W. M. Weekley, W. M. Bell, H. H. Fout, C. J. Kephart, A. T. 

Howard, N. Castle, emeritus, and T. C. Carter, emeritus. 

1917 —1921, G. M. Mathews (died, 1920), W. M. Bell, H. H. Fout, C. J. Kephart, A. T. Howard , 
W. H. Washinger, N. Castle, emeritus, and W. M. Weekley, emeritus. 

1921—1925, W. M. Bell, H. H. Fout, C. J. Kephart, W. H. Washinger, A. R. Clippinger, 
N. Castle, emeritus (died, 1921), and W. M. Weekley, emeritus. 


783 


784 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 

AGENTS OF THE PUBLISHING HOUSE 
Three Trustees—John Russel, Jonathan Dresbach, George Dresbach, and Editor, 

W. R. Rhinehart.....1834—1837 

Wm. Hanby, Treasurer and Agent---1837—1839 

William Hanby, Agent and Editor---1839—1845 

J. Markwood (elected, but did not serve)--1845 

N. Altman_1845—1852 

Wm. Hanby_1852—1853 

S. Vonnieda_1853—1854 

S. Vonnieda and H. Kumler, Jr.-1854 

S. Vonnieda and T. N. Sowers------__1855—1861 

T. N. Sowers and J. B. King---1861—1864 

T. N. Sowers and W. J. Shuey-1864—1865 

W. J. Shuey and T. N. Sowers-----1865 

W. J. Shuey and Wm. McKee_1865—1866 

W. J. Shuey_1866—1897 

W. R. Funk..„......1897—- 

EDITORS OF THE RELIGIOUS TELESCOPE 

Wm. Rhinehart_1834—1839 

Wm. Hanby__..1839—1845 

D. Edwards_1845—1849 

Wm. Hanby.-_____1849—1852 

Assistant: John Lawrence___1850—1852 

John Lawrence_1852—1864 

D. Berger_1864—1869 

M. Wright_ 1869—1873 

Assistant: D. Berger------1869—1873 

M. Wright and W. O. Tobey______1873—1877 

J. W. Hott..............1877—1889 

Assistants: W. O. Tobey-1877..1881 

M. R. Drury.......1881—1889 

I. L. Kephart_1889—1908 

Associates: M. R. Drury-1889—1897 

A. P. Funkhouser---1897—1898 

G. M. Mathews_-_______1898—1902 

Assistant, J. M. Phillippi___1902—1905 

Associate, J. M. Phillippi___'_1905—1909 

J. M. Phillippi, Acting Editor_____1908—1909 

J. M. Phillippi........1909—_ 

Associate: C. I. B. Brane_____1909—1920 

Assistant: D. T. Gregory___ a_1920—1921 

Associate: W. E. Snyder_1921—_ 

. EDITORS OF UNITY MAGAZINE 

David Edwards...1853—1857 

Alexander Owen____1857—1859 

EDITORS OF THE UNITED BRETHREN REVIEW 

J. W. Etter.1889—1893 

Associates: G. A. Funkhouser__1891—1892 

J. P. Landis... 1891—1892 

A. W. Drury..1891—1892 

Professors of Union Biblical Seminary.__1893—1894 

G. M. Mathews, Managing Editor...1894—1898 

H. H. Fout, Managing Editor.....1898—1901 

H. A. Thompson.......1901—1908 



















































HISTORICAL TABLES 


785 


EDITOR OF THE WATCHWORD 
H. F. Shupe_ 

EDITORS OF GERMAN PAPERS 

John Russel (unofficial)_ 

Jacob Erb_ 

N. Altman_ 

D. Strickler_!___ 

Henry Staub_ 

Julius Degmeier___ 

S. Vonnieda_ 

Ezekel Light__ 

William Mittendorf_ 

Ezekiel Light____ 

William Mittendorf_ 

Ezekiel Light___ 

William Mittendorf_ 

E. Lorenz_ 

A. Schmidt (Botschafter)_ 

H. J. Fischer (Jugend Pilger)_ 

G. W. Kopittke (Botschafter)_ 

EDITORS OF SABBATH-SCHOOL PERIODICALS 

D. Edwards_ 

Alexander Owen_ 

S. Vonnieda_ 

D. Berger_ 

Associate: J. W. Etter___ 

J. W. Etter_ 

D. Berger_ 

Associate: H. A. Thompson__ 

H. A. Thompson_:_ 

Associate: Robert Cowden_ 

H. H. Fout... 

Associate: W. O. Fries_ 

W. O. Fries__ 

Associate: John W. Owen_ 


1893—_ 


.1840—1841 

.1841—1842 

.1846—1847 

.1847—1851 

.1851—1855 

.1855—1858 

.1858—1866 

.1866—1869 

.1869—1885 

.1866—1869 

.1889—1893 

.1893 

.1893—1895 
.1895—1900 
.1900—1921 
.1900—1915 
1921—_ 


.1854—1857 

1857—1859 

.1859—1869 

.1869—1893 

1889—1893 

1893—1895 

1895—1897 

1893—1897 

1897—1901 

1897—1901 

1901—1913 

1905—1913 

1913—_ 

1913—_ 


EDITORS OF WOMAN’S EVANGEL 


Mrs. L. R. Keister_1882—1893 

Associate: Mrs. L. K. Miller_1888—1893 

Mrs. L. K. Miller.....1893—1904 

Mrs. B. F. Witt and Mrs. G. P. Macklin___1904—1905 

Mrs. M. R. Albert Hough.......1905—1914 

Miss Mabel Drury_1914—1917 

Miss Vera Blinn. .......1917—1920 

Miss Alice Bell...........1920—1921 

Mrs. Edith Gilbert Kern_..._______1922—1923 

Miss Matilda Weber_1923—- 


SECRETARIES OF THE BOARD OF MISSIONS 


J. C. Bright......1853—1857 

D. K. Flickinger__—...-.1857—1885 


(J. C. Bright acted as Secretary for a number of months during 1857 and 1858, 
but was compelled by declining health to leave the work.) 


Z. Warner___1885—1887 

Wm. McKee, Acting Secretary------—.1887—1888 

B. F. Booth....-.-....1888—1893 

W. M. Bell........1893—1905 


















































786 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 

SECRETARIES OF HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY 

C. Whitney___1905—1917 

Miss Lydia Wiggim, Educational Secretary_1917— 

P. M. Camp......1917- 

SECRETARIES OF FOREIGN MISSIONARY SOCIETY 

S. S. Hough.....1905—1918 

J. Edgar Knipp, Educational Secretary_1918—1921 

A. T. Howard Acting Secretary_1918—1921 

S. G. Ziegler...:....1921—_ 

TREASURERS OF THE BOARD OF MISSIONS 

John Kemp______—1853—1869 

Wm. McKee. 1869—1873 

J. W. Hott........1873—1877 

J. K. Billheimer........1877—1885 

Wm. McKee.. .1885—1901 

GENERAL CHURCH TREASURERS 

Wm. McKee...1901—1905 

L. O. Miller..........1905—_ 

SECRETARIES OF CHURCH ERECTION SOCIETY 

Secretaries of Board of Missions___1872—1889 

♦John Hill..........1889—1889 

Wm. McKee, Acting Secretary__1890—1893 

*C. I. B. Brane.........1894—1894 

W. M. Weekley.......1895—1905 

H. S. Gabel.....1905—1913 

A. C. Siddall.......1913—_ 

♦Resigned. 

TREASURERS OF CHURCH ERECTION SOCIETY 
Treasurers of Board of Missions_1872—1901 

BUSINESS MANAGERS BONEBRAKE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
(Formerly Union Biblical Seminary) 

John Kemp..........1871—1874 

S. M. Hippard.....1874—1879 

W. J. Pruner.........1879—1881 

S. L. Herr.........1881—1885 

D. R. Miller...*....1885—1897 

W. J. Shuey..1897—1901 

C. M. Brooke..........1901—1909 

J. E. Fout.1909—_ 

WOMAN’S MISSIONARY ASSOCIATION 
Presidents 

Mrs. T. N. Sowers...1875—1879 

Mrs. Sylvia Haywood.....1879—1887 

Mrs. L. K. Miller.1887—1905 

Mrs. L. R. Harford_1905—_ 

Secretaries 

Mrs. L. R. Harford........1875—1876 

Mrs. B. F. Marot....1876—1881 

Mrs. L. R. Harford...1881—1893 







































HISTORICAL TABLES 


787 


Mrs. B. F. Witt........1893—1909 

Mrs. Alva Kauffman___ 1909 _jgjg 

Miss Vera Blinn___ ..1919—1920 

Miss Alice Bell_ 1921 _ 

Justina Lorenz, Young Women’s Department_1908_1909 

Ada M. Slusser, Young Women’s Department_1910_1911 

Miss Geneva Harper_ 1911_1912 

Miss Vera Blinn.....(after 1913 Otterbein Guild).1912—1915 

Miss Elsie Hall..... 1915—1922 

Miss Janet Gilbert_1922_.. 

Treasurers 

Mrs. W. J. Shuey________1875—1881 

Mrs. D. L. Rike_________1881—1903 

Mrs. B. F. Witt--„-1903—1909 

Mrs. Alva Kauffman_1909—1919 

Miss Vera Blinn_____ 1919—1920 

Miss Alice Bell_____1921—.... 


SECRETARIES OF THE SABBATH-SCHOOL ASSOCIATION 
Board of Control of Sunday-School, Brotherhood, and Young People’s Work 


I. Crouse.__________1865—1877 

Robert Cowden_____1877—1913 

M. A. Honline, Director Religious Education_1909—1917 

W. L. Bunger, Secretary Brotherhood and Young People’s Work_1910—1913 

C. W. Brewbaker.....„.1913—_ 


YOUNG PEOPLE’S CHRISTIAN UNION 
Presidents 

J. P. Landis...._________1890—1902 

J. G. Huber_______1902—1909 

Secretaries 

W. A. Dickson...._________1890—1893 

H. F. Shupe________1893—1900 

C. W. Brewbaker___1900—1906 

H. F. Shupe..........-.1906—1909 

Treasurers 

Mrs. L. R. Swain.......1890—1892 

Chester B. Boda______1892—1894 

Z. A. Barnard_1894—1898 

E. Jay Rogers___1898—1909 

Young People’s Department, Board of Control 

H. F. Shupe, Acting Secretary___1909—1910 

W. L. Bunger, Secretary__—----1910—1913 

O. T. Deever__1913 - 


MEN’S MOVEMENT 

J. G. Huber, Chairman Committee....... 

O. P. Beckley, Secretary-Treasurer..... 

Brotherhood Department, Board of Control 

O. P. Beckley, Acting Secretary.... 

W. L. Bunger, Secretary... 

O. T. Deever....... 


1906— 1909 

1907— 1909 

1909— 1910 

1910— 1913 

1913—_ 


CHRISTIAN STEWARDSHIP 

Christian Stewardship Commission...•-... 

J. S. Kendall, Secretary... 


1901—_ 

1909—1913 












































788 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


COMMISSION OF FINANCE 

J. S. Kendall, Secretary_1913—1917 

BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION 


J. S. Kendall, Secretary_1917—1918 

S. S. Hough, Secretary_1918—- 


GROWTH IN MEMBERSHIP 


1813*. 10,000 1892 

1820*... 9,000 1893 

1835*. 20,000 1894 

1845*. 30,000 1895 

1850*. 40,000 1896 

1853*_ 47,000 1897 

1857.... 61,399 1900 

1861. 94,453 1910 

1870. 118,055 1915 

1880.. 157,835 1920 

1890. 197,123 1923 


*Estimated. 

GENERAL CONFERENCES 
1815—Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania. 

1817—Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania. 

1821—Mr. Dewalt Mechlin’s, Fairfield County, Ohio. 

1825—Jacob Shaup’s, Tuscarawas County, Ohio. 

1829—DeWalt Mechlin’s, Fairfield County, Ohio. 

1833—George Dresbach’s, Pickaway County, Ohio. 

1837—Germantown, Ohio. 

1841—Dresbach’s Church, Pickaway County, Ohio. 

1845—Circleville, Pickaway County, Ohio. 

1849—Germantown, Ohio. 

1853—Miltonville, Ohio. 

1857—Cincinnati, Ohio. 

1861—Westerville, Ohio. 

1865—Western, Iowa. 

1869—Lebanon, Pennsylvania. 

1873—Dayton, Ohio. 

1877—Westfield, Illinois. 

1881—Lisbon, Iowa. 

1885—Fostoria, Ohio. 

1889—York, Pennsylvania. 

1893—Dayton, Ohio. 

1897—Toledo, Iowa. 

1901—Frederick, Maryland. 

1905—Topeka, Kansas. 

1909—Canton, Ohio. 

1913—Decatur, Illinois. 

1917—Wichita, Kansas. 

1921—Indianapolis, Indiana. 


.203,893 

204,517 

.223,638 

233,204 

238,782 

243,183 

243,841 

285,430 

341,845 

351,007 

379,314 


EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 
Otterbein College, Westerville, Ohio, founded 1847. 

Leander Clark College, merged with Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, act of merging in liti¬ 
gation, founded 1856. 

Kansas City University, United Brethren and Methodist Protestants cooperating. Kansas 
City, Kansas, successor of Lane University, founded 1865. 



























HISTORICAL TABLES 


789 


Philomath College, Philomath, Oregon, founded 1865. 

Lebanon Valley College, Annville, Pennsylvania, founded 1866. 

York College, York, Nebraska, founded 1890. 

Indiana Central College, Indianapolis, Indiana, founded 1902. 

Shenandoah Collegiate Institute, Dayton, Virginia, founded 1876. 

Bonebrake Theological Seminary, Dayton, Ohio, founded 1871. 

Rufus Clark and Wife Training School, Shenge, West Africa, founded 1887. 

Albert Academy. Free Town, West Africa, founded 1904. 

In mission fields there are a number of other educational institutions, both denominational 
and union. 


HISTORICAL OUTLINE 

Philip William Otterbein was born in Germany, June 3, 1726; came to America as a 
Missionary, 1752; Pastor in Baltimore 1774 until his death, 1813; Bishop in the United 
Brethren Church, 1800-1813. 

Religious Movement under Otterbein and Boehm, 1766-1800. 

First Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, 1789. 

Church Formally Organized in Frederick County, Maryland, 1800. 

First General Conference, Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania, 1815. 

Confession of Faith Revised and Formally Adopted, 1815. 

First Sunday School Organized, in Corydon, Indiana, 1820. 

Publishing House Established at Circleville, Ohio, 1834. 

Constitution Adopted, First, 1837; Second, 1841. 

First College Founded, Otterbein University, 1847. 

Home, Frontier, and Foreign Missionary Society Organized, 1853. 

Sunday-School Association Organized, 1865. 

Church Erection Society Constituted, 1869. 

Board of Education Constituted, 1869. 

Union Biblical Seminary founded, 1871. 

Woman’s Missionary Association organized, 1875. 

Amended Constitution and Revised Confession of Faith adopted, 1889. 

Young People’s Christian Union Organized, June 5, 1890. Became Christian Endeavor, 
1908. 

Colestock Old People’s Home founded, 1893. 

Christian Stewardship Movement inaugurated, 1901. 

Quincy Orphanage and Home founded, 1903. 

Home and Foreign Missionary Societies become separate, 1905. 

Brotherhood Movement began, 1906. 

Cooperation of the Women’s Missionary Society with the Foreign and Home Missionary 
Boards, 1909. 

Otterbein Home founded, 1912. 

Board of Administration created, 1917. 

Commission on Evangelism created, 1917. 

Preachers’ Pension and Annuity Plan established, 1921. 


CONFERENCES 


Original Conference___ 

Allegheny_ 

Arkansas Valley_ 

Auglaize (first called Maumee) now not a conference- 

California_ 

Central Illinois (now not a conference)... 

Central Ohio (now not a conference). 

Colorado__—-- 

Columbia River (first called Cascade, then Walla Walla) 
Dakota (now not a separate conference)-- 


1800 

1839 

1881 

1853 

1864 

1865 
1878 
1872 
1865 
1871 












790 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


East Des Moines (part of Iowa conference)--- 1853 

East German (united with East Pennsylvania conference).... 1870 

East Nebraska (part of Nebraska conference)__— 1873 

East Ohio (by union of Muskingum and Western Reserve)--.-.. 1886 

East Pennsylvania____1846 

Elkhorn (now not a separate conference)___._ 1882 

Elkhorn and Dakota united_____ 1885 

Erie (present Erie 1861)_____ 1853 

Florida (Georgia 1902 to 1913, Georgia-Florida 1913 to 1917)-- 1917 

Fox River (now not a separate conference)_ 1861 

Hagerstown (the original conference, no longer distinctly preserved)..... 1800 

Illinois_ 1845 

Indiana..,_ 1830 

Iowa__•_ 1845 

Kansas_ 1857 

Kentucky (now not a conference)_ 1857 

Lower Wabash (now not a separate conference)_ 1858 

Maryland (united with Pennsylvania conference)_ 1887 

Miami_ 1810 

Michigan (first called North Michigan)_I_ 1862 

Minnesota_ 1857 

Missouri_ 1858 

Montana_ 1911 

Muskingum (part of East Ohio)_ 1818 

Neosho (part of Kansas conference)_ 1870 

New Mexico (in process 1913 to 1915)_ 1915 

North Michigan (first called Saginaw; part of Michigan conference)._ 1877 

North Ohio (now not a conference)_ 1853 

Northwest Kansas (part of Kansas conference)_ 1879 

Ohio German_ 1853 

Ontario (given right to join in a Canadian union)_ 1856 

Oregon_ 1854 

Pennsylvania (by division of Hagerstown conference)....... 1831 

Rock River (part of Illinois conference)_ 1853 

St. Joseph_•__ 1845 

Sandusky_ 1834 

Scioto_ 1825 

Southwest Missouri (part of Missouri conference)_ 1881 

Southwest Kansas (part of Kansas conference)_ 1893 

Tennessee_ 1866 

Tennessee River (part of Tennessee conference)..._ 1896 

Upper Wabash (now not a separate conference)_ 1835 

Virginia (by division of Hagerstown conference)....... 1831 

West Des Moines (part of Iowa conference)... 1861 

West Nebraska_ 1878 

West Virginia (formerly Parkersburg)_ 1857 

Western Reserve (part of East Ohio)........ 1861 

White River_ 1846 

Wisconsin_ 1858 


FOREIGN CONFERENCES 


West Africa_ 1880 

Japan_ 1902 

Porto Rico... 1903 

China.. 1908 

Philippines.. 1908 
























































HISTORICAL TABLES 791 

ORDINATION OF BISHOPS 


-^4 rH 

s % 
00 00 



0> 

E 

o 

y 

<D 

55 


eo 


§ 

I 00 
o rH 
« 


a 

o 

x 

.53 

X 


> 

0) 

c 

n 

00 


a; 
Jtt 
ci 

x 

y 

tZ3 

•3 

*S 

'S 


C -o 


S 

X) c 

i-. —< 

o 


"O 

E ■« 


y 05 

3 t> 
X i-l 
y 


c 

X 

O 

^ co 

>> 52 
Ja 00 


Q) M 

.S 

T3 w 


w 

« E 

£ D 

§ §• 

(2 O 

72 .2 
d S 
° 

X o 
.2 *“ 
x t> 

uJ c 

oil 
8 S 
g s 

so $ 

X 2 

a g 

y 1H 
x _ 


£ * 


N > 
Tj< > 
00 « 
l-H D. 

. a 

1-3 

X 

w 


PASTORS OF OTTERBEIN'S CHURCH. BALTIMORE 
William Otterbein, 1774-1813; Friederich Schaefer, 1813-14; Joseph Hoffmann, 1814-17; 
Johann Schneider, 1817-25; Wilhelm Braun, 1825-28; Johann Neidig, 1828-31; Johann 
Krock, 1831-35; Peter Hermann, 1835-38; Johann Rossel, 1838-41; Jacob Erb, 1841-48; 
George Miller, 1848-51; Johann Rossel, 1851-54; Samuel Enterlein, 1854-57; Heinrich Schropp, 
1857-60; Johann A. Sand, 1860-67; Carl Schneider, 1867-70; Nehemia Altmann, 1870-73; 
Jacob Doerksen, 1873-77; J. M. Kunkel, 1877-80; August Krause, 1880-85; William Mitten- 
dorf, 1885-89; J. R. Blecker, 1889-93; A. Schmidt, 1893-1910; H. J. Fischer, 1910-15; J. G, 
Leuchauer, April to May, 1915; Wm. Weber, May to September, 1915; J. G. Leuchauer, 
1915-18; P. B. Gibble, 1918-23; Cawley H. Stine, 1923— 











STATISTICS FOR 1923 OF THE CHURCH OF THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


PU n D 

uxaqjajjQ ux saaquiajy 


s PU n O nxaqjajjo *»N 

SUOIJ 

-Biaossy Xjbuoxssij^ 
s 4 xiaxuoA\ ux sjaqxuaj^ 

suoxjBioossy Xjb 
- uoxssipj’ e.uauio^Y *oj\[ 

8JIIU0 

-3H JJJOAi ajxq 

saxjaxoog 
•3 ‘0 Joxunf puB ajBi 
-paxujajuj ux ejaqxua^ 

•aos -3 *3 joxunf 
puB ajBipaxujaju’i - o^ 

eaxjapog *a "0 
joxuag ux ejaquia^ 

saxjaxaog 

•3 ”0 Joxuag *on 

SU0ISJ3AU03 ‘ojq 

sjaqjiX ‘OH 

JB3 A 

jo pua JB dxqsjaqxuaj^ 

•JJ3Q jnoqjpvx p.xuaH 
pUB uoxs{ndxa ‘Jaj 
-subjj, ‘iajjaq Xq jsoq 


J3JSUBJJ, 

jo jajjaq £q paAiaoan 


sjUBjauijj paJiia'jj 


qjBaQ iCq jsoq 


qjiBj jo uoxs 


sajBijuaaxq 'o^j 


sjuBjauxji jBooq *of^ 


sjuBjauxjj aAijoy -ojq 


saqajnq^ 


saajBqq jo *o^ 


H 

U 

z 

H 

P5 

H 

z 

o 

o 


05 

c| o.21 c 

|,o 2 e°^ 

o s -u +* 


i 

§ ! 
I : 
>» 1 


O s 


i!-d.!i iHSlI ilHl l-ifli 


cS 1 i J'S fi (j 
3 J (j ij C 2 
o C is ^ 4) a, g 




3 S 3 g 8-s 


c$ 

«ou 

|«s 

„ w ^ „ -3.2 c ; s.s-a.2f 5 § « § s?g 3 2 Sc 1 " a> s * c lei 

s’S c| 3 c '3 S-g B S §£ *.2<j t?g^3 g-B|is 8.S £ Bt% 

S3 d o o « 5 « o53Sa5««J3^ 2 a> J § o rt-O 

^OUUWWWhH®tSW,jSSSSSZZOOOfcMWWt«>£££u3pLiP4£ 

r-i©©Tjiir5©t>oo©©r-i©©i!i©©t-oo©©rH©«''i , io©c-oo©©r-i©©ii<©©t> 

HHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNnWMnMMnCO 


^©©uOlOrfOOrflOrfOOt- I05-H iOOii'C-©©r-l©©«©t--©r-IWM© < irHOO-i* 

iO t- r-l Tf © r-l OX rH 50 05 © © < OO if I if if O0 OX r-l if © t- 5/0 t- C- r-l if 05 r-l © I iHlOH 

<iO »—t ©©© CO r-l OO if 1 C- 1 OO rH ©©©if ©r-l©r-l 1 1 rH 

rH r-l© II OX ' 1 

II I* 

II II 

14891 

19150 

4259 

OCXOXOOHNOXrHOt~t-t* 10000 IOOOOC- i rH 00 © © © C--00 © rH © © 00 ' 1 OO rH H 

© rH OO CO rH If rH CX 1 OX 1 rH - 1 UO rH CX rH rH rH II 

III * II 

Tf © 1© 

© co i © 

rf © 1 

1 

ICiONOXOt-HfiO^OOOO I H* OX © OX OX OO rH 05 00 CO OO 05 © 05 rH 00 rH lO © I It- 1 I 

05©t—CO^OOOOt—tf000t-05 iCOrHOOOOOC- © uo t- OO OO © 00 © oo © © © 1 I 05 * i 

Hft-rH rH OX 05 ■Hl'COOOC- 1 ItO ox rH CX © Hf ox OX 00 © © CX rH © H*LO rH 1 IrH 1 1 

OO CX© ex rH l ox •a'rHCXrH t-H II II 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 till 

37305 

37080 

225 

(MOOO^fO^iOrfiOCOCOOO ■ 00 rH O CO CO 00 ■ <£> CO Tf 00 H 00 CO t> W CO ^ i • 00 • ' 

ID Tf 05 CO r><MC0^ 1 IO t-H t-H 04 iHHHt^CD^CO W H (N H II II 

1 1 * 1 1 1 1 

1 1 till 

956 

930 

26 

NO^HOOCDt^XOOWO I » • • oo 

CD lO rH C4 rH <N CD O rH 1 kD IO rH t> rH i-H CO CD rH CO M l> CO rH CD 1 1 1 'O 

rH rH COH N IrH rH rH 04 rH • 1 1 1 rH 

1 till 

1 1 1 1 1 

2547 

2464 

83 

t-oxt>©rH05rH05 05©©HjuoexuooorH05oooox©ooe-05tfoo5-<j'aoox©ex i cx © © © 

© OX © TJI CX © M t> © 00 © © rH H}< © OX -3 1 E- © rH © © OX OO OO rH C- © © © Hf 1 OX CX OX Hjl 

© © OO © rH © © C- t- rH * 00 •'X' CX rH © CO'fHHOOXrHrtOOOOrl 1 © © 

CX HTf rH OX rH OO rH rH OX rH rH 1 rH 

1 

1 

32391 

33937 

1546 

OOrHCOOXOXC-OOOOrH05©©-H©00,_lCXOOC-'*rH<7500©Hll©Hl<©IHjlOO©00 ICX©rH© 

C— OX rH O0©CX ©CX©W* © rH rH OX rH rH © OO © OO OO OO 1 rH CO 

* 1 

1 

1 

1020 

1008 

12 

©rHooH*oo-'f©rHcxrHa5oo©oorHoxoocxoocxoocXrH©a5t-oo©oooo©©©©©oooo 

c-c-©oot-©ooe-©©ooc-oo©>oo©©ooe-c-oxc-oo©oocx©cx©©©' , *©©©rH© 

00 1(1 -# H H t- M ©©©rs< t- © H* H}I ox OO rH C- © CX © © OO © © CX © CX © CX rf -t rH 

© CXHfrH -f HH 1 (I CX rH rH ijl OX CO ■** CO CO CO 

64194 

67217 

3023 

OX-<X<CX©H)li-H©O0rH©rHO0«rHTllO0©©©HjlHf©©00©rHrHC-TllO0©H)ICX©©CX© 
OO rH rH ©05© Hi#lOH* t-CXHH H}l rH OO rH © t-© © rH © © if 1 -H rH rH rH 

.H rH rH * 

1590 

1628 

38 

X 00 05 CO o CD ID CD t-H CD 05 CD 05 04 t> »-H CO ID CO t> CD Tf o C<J 04 CD CO • » » i 04 

O h CD 05 iO CO 00 t-h 04 CD h* Tf 03 04 ^ CO O X X 04 0- X 05 t> CD h* h O Ol O X t- 1 l i 1 t-h 

t-H 04 04 CO^X X^l>X* C-COHC4HIO 04 CD 05 CO X CD iO O X 04 i i i i tH 

04 H H r-H rH r-H rH tHtHHHC 004 llll 

1 1 1 1 

llll 

29154 

37411 

8257 

© » t-OO t-© C-t-© © © © TJI O0 © « If rj« © oo CX © © © CX CX © CX © -J* © rH 1 iCX irf 

rH © t- © © t- © © © © rt © ex © © t- C- © © © rH CX © © © If © © © © © © 1 1© 1© 

©Tf H TflC© © t- ->J I Tjl * rH CX rH © rH CX rH t- rH © r* rH t- © © CX 1 ' Hj< IrH 

rH rH rH rH rH CX rH rH rH rH rH II 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

24118 

24025 

93 

©©«©©©©©T)<rH©C-©©Hf©©HfrHHj<t-CX©©©rH©©©©t-t-©C-T(<©C- 

©©©©rH©rH©©©©©©©t-©CXCX©H>'©rO©©rH©rHrH©t-©©©rJlHl<©© 

©©©C-©t-©©C-Hf©©>CXrH©©©©C-CX©CX©C-©©©©©rH©Hl , ©©Hl<©© 

©CXCX © © t- ©©©©*CX©rH© t- rH © rH © rH if © © t-© © © rH rH © rH rH 

CX rH CX © rH rH rH © © © © rH rH © © 

379314 

374965 

4349 

t-©©©©©©©©«©© l©rHC-©C-©©©©©©©©©M©©e-H}lrH©©©rH 

© © © C- © © © C- © © If t- 1 © © © © rH © rH © © © © © © C-© rH © © rH © © © rj* 
©© rH rH rH © rf rf tH © 1 © © rH © rH © ©©©©©©©©©© CX rH rH 

rH H H rH rH l rH rH rH rH rH H H rH 

1 

1 

22543 

22746 

203 

© © © rH t- © © rH © t-© © '©©©©©© 1 © Tf © t- © rH C- © © © rH rH © © © © 

O© rH © © rH rH rH © © 1 © © © H* © 1 © © © © © © © © C— © -T ^ rH rH © © © 

© rH « rH © rH H rH l© 1 © © © © rH rH © 

1 1 

1 1 

3846 

3672 

174 

©©t-OOt-rf©«OOrH,H© lt-©lOOOC-lj<©OOlO©tHt-©©-'a l t-t-HtlOOlOUO©©rH 
© © t- rH © © t- rH © © rH rH 1©©©©©© © C- 00 rH -<0 © © © T* rH C- © rH © © 

© rH Hfl © rH Tj<rH©© l © rH rH rH Hj* Tl< © © © © rH 

1 

1 

8003 

8467 

464 

X©r*«CO©CDt>04THXC005 iCD05COX05CDC-t>t>XH05Tt«01^»-H©COi-HC-04©i004 
©XiD©iOl>Tf04t>©CD© iOJDa}^©t-M©^^^©C5a5iOXX04HHOiOT}<H 
rH 04 ©Ht}< ID©ID© ikDrH 04 t-H lO hCOhCCOHtJ'COhtJ'^OIHH^HH 

rH H H rH rH 1 rH rH ^H rH H H H 

1 

1 

22735 

28687 

5952 

rtHiOCOHOOTl' » X t-h 04 © 1 © id x ID i © 04 ■ © © X © X © X © ^ ^ i © X © X 

04 HriH 1 t-h rf 04 CO 1 rH i i 04 04 X rH X 04 ' rH 04 

till I 

till l 

471 

451 

20 

X © 04 rH o © 04 X X © rH 1 rH © 04 T-H l© i X 04 © X X ^ t> ID ©id 04 H 1 1 IrH 

t-H rH t-H rH x 1 t-h 1 1 rH 04 rH rH III 

1 II III 

1 II III 

oooo i© 

© © i© 

© © ■ 

1 

© © © Hf o X © H o © © T-H o ID x 04 X 1 ID © X rf © 0- O- i 04 rH X © 04 H H i© 

rH rH rH rH rH ^ ID 04 04 * rH rH 04 1 H H H rf • 04 04 X 1 rH 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

486 

411 

75 

ooa5r-ioa5TiiuotOkOc-c>t-excD©ioiooot-Tt<-tj<ooooc-r-i.-ioo'<a , e<oa5©cxuo5neOTi<'<f 
00 r-l H rH in 00 Tjl © ff id 00 * © CX rH CX Tf rtHHC-OOOOtOHliltCOrlHHrlHCX 

1454 

1416 

38 

i0r-icoc-io©i*©©coexmcxt-oocxi-©r-i.^<©©ooc-©©c-5oc-''* , ©ooeo©a5c5© 
HNHHHiocx cx t- io 05* © rji cx 50 ex c- r-i io cx ■'}'to oo © ^ eo rH cx ec r-i « 

. CX HHH (MHHrl r-l HrlrtH rlNH 

3351 

3348 

3 

CXr-I^JUC©T)<rH©CX00©r-ICX5O©lC©lJ't-T}l©00CXCXrH©rHr-l©C-CX©t-©tOTfr-l 
© CX rl rl i—1 © © CX IO C- CO * © CO r-l CX r-l kO r-l CO CX C- OO 00 00 CX if C- © CX r-l rH r-l r-l if 

[ TH r. f 

1777 

1717' 

60 


© © 
C<J © 
© 05 

rH rH 

CQ CO 

15 "3 
o o 
hh 

'O’O 

c a 

rt ri 

u 

oo 


o> 

2 03 
rt 35 

£ £ 

h o 






















































































































STATISTICS FOR 1923 OF THE CHURCH OF THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


uoi^Budojddy 
XjBuoissijq aouajajuo^ 

OOOoS^SNSSrtrt iWOHOOOOOfflOOOOlfl . I® ,© 

©•«s<S©co©t?£j2hco? 22 2^i2£1 it-iococoortaNWinot- i t © ioo 

i^OOU5<COt- iN«NlO«OOOMt»MOH 1 I i © 

CO CO HN'fMN OOrHTfOO IrHOTOT OT rH 1 CO rH CO Tj< rH © © £i J-H h* « £ 1 1 I 

1 III 

1 III 

! • iii 

• r 1 1 

$93016 

85515 

7501 

ipjni{3 Xq 

piBJ XiBpjg S.JO^SBJ 

looqos ^Epuns phoj. 

mS2SM22222' f ,9if 3 ^ 05c0t ~ 00a>lrt05 ' £, o<M00^>cDe0Tj<^<O'<f(NrH-^rHe0 

©»nwHSSJ2!^529l£?'- , 9 t '' 0 ® T * 0 ® ff ^ c ®^C'T e '3C^' _ '''l , ©CD000000©©©©Ol©C— CO 

NNh «SS N 2^?;?SS Hnn 9 H,J ® N ®^ H ®®0>0® N N« 

oocom rHTji^o*a5oa<-'^ © hhhoohx kjxoh 

M- ^ ^ 1-1 rHrHrH r-H 

$1687648 

1645064 

42584 

52coS2 ?aS299 00 92!^ 10 ^^ 10 ' H ^^ 5050 n ^■"* 50 ' H »o m i i i it- 
S 2 m 2 2 9 00 23 2 ^ ^ ^ 05 M ^ M ^ 00 ^ ^ ® ^ in oa o oj oo c-«c • i • i c— 

2 © <M TH CO rH ^©NCOrH© rH © CO CO 05 © © CO O <75 h* CO 1 1 1 1 

CO iNCO-rH NHHN 04 rH COlNCOlN (N 04 04 I 1 1 i 

1 1 1 1 

till 

1 1 1 1 

474629 

483909 

9280 

pjo^qo^B^ aq L p 

o^c^coc^oo^-iCrHooc^ooa5*aiaicOTfrHt>THrH^oioi-HooiHioc^xc^iOTf i i i i 

TT C^tHtH CO H H CO lO rH rH rtf fc- CO CO 01 1 1 1 1 

till 

1 1 i 1 

58944 

57993 

951 

ia3uBAg aqj, 

rj 2 22 £ 12 i£ S3 £2 2 2° ^ 00 00 ^ 10 ^ 00 w oo t- io to co »-h Tf m <j> a> ■ i i ■ ^—« 

!i^ll^?2^fS^El!ll9 CO *9 rfHOOlOHHNOrHH ^^0^«DOOa5>0 1 1 i MM 

^ rH COLOIO krt 1—1 IOHHH lO HNNCOOt> CONOOH i l 1 i 

Ol rHOl T-» rH rH <M H M I I 1 I 

till 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 I 1 

1 1 1 1 

21975 

21109 

866 

adoosapj, snoiSiia^j 

22^2S2S2iZ£?£I ( 5 t v; l^:>t: ~ Q0kf:lMNTl, <Nt-coHii®©©t-eoeo©co© ■ • ■ ■ ca 

^ M 04 C- 04 to O-CO tr CO lO lO •rl' ° (M 00 04 Tf 04 04 r)< 04 O 1-1 Tji O 04 C-04 VO i 1 ■ ■ t—1 

CiCOr-l © hJ< © © © ® CO * rH OT 04 CO C4i— lHj , t-rH©rHt-©nt‘C<> I i 1 1 

1 -H i-l iH rH rH rH C4 H H H HH 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

till 

23099 

24870 

1771 

*S ‘S 

uiojj qojnq^ 0 } pappy 

rj< CO CO O O CO 00 r* 04 04 CO © ' t- rH 04 04 04 O O t- 04 CO t- © CO rH 04 CO O 04 rH 1 1 i 1 i 

rf CO © -rf t- rH © CO ^ 00 vO i CO CO lO CO t- CO 04 CO CO 00 t- rH CO rf CO CO -H* O C- 1 i i 1 1 

OO rH H t— 00 1 —1 001- CO co i i—i rt rH rt< 04 OCOOOCOrHCOVOO 1 i i 1 I 

1 1 -H rH rH 1 1 1 1 1 

1 I 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

' 1 1 1 1 1 

13521 

17281 

3760 

ssbi 3 3ui 

-uibjj, jaqoBaj, ut *6^ 

OWt> IOOON !0Mt>0 1 rH co 1 CO CD i lUOcOO^uOrfrHCDlM^DasiO i i i 100 

03 rH M 1 00 03 'CD ' t— CO » ID i 1 03 rH oc iD 00 rH O 00 i i i i 

CO 'CO 1 rH IH 1 II 01 rH rH rH till 

' > II II 1 1 1 1 

1 ' II II 1 1 1 1 

1 ' II II 1 l l l 

2330 

2664 

334 

aouBpua^^y aSBaaAy 

04 CO CO lO Tf 04 1 -H CO ^ Tf CO rH 04 04 Hf Tj< CO O ^Jl CO rH OJ TJI 00 rH 04 Ht< CD VO CO CO lO lio 1 104 

nf CO t- t- t- VO t> 04 Hjl rH 04 rH ID 04 04 CO CO VO Tf rH 04 Iflfl lO VO CO 00 04 rjl rH rH t- 1 00 1 1T1< 

kO 00 O VO n< rH 04 CO 04 O CO CO-H rH CO 04 CD kO C4 CO rH rH co r^i HI oo C-04 CO T}| 04 04 104 1 100 

CO rH rH 04 04 CO 04 t—kO rH * 04 04 rH Tjl rH 04 rH C-04 CO rH rH 00 04 rH rH 1 rH 1 l rH 

rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH 1 II 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

210635 

218684 

8049 

^uamnojua ppox 

rHOOt-C00040404Hft-rfkOrHUOc0004000COC0040000040400C0 00 04CO-H<0004>0 
rH04 04 O00>0rHC0H)it-00C0'C04C0C0HjiC0C0C004C0C004k0rHt->00400H}iiOOt-0404O 
CD04C0C0k004C-kOC0t-OrH0404 O04Tji04O‘^HfiHiOk004C0C-krtrHrH0400t-04C0c0O 
i1* CO 04 rH O 04 00 lO rH rH 04 * lO U4 H CO H ® 04 hJ , O4>Ch^O4O4C0COt)<CO04 ^H 04 04 04 

CO 04 CO 04 rH rH 04 04 CO 04 04 04 rH 04 04 

433710 

439066 

5356 

TOO£ 

t-00C-H)*C0rH04tHrHrHlO00iHOrHC0iOk0C004rJiri , kO04t-<7404C000OkOrfTj<00 04C0r)< 
lOHf004COOCOOrHOt-OHflr-COCOrHrHCOa4COkOC00404rHCOkOa4C-COeOHjlr^COCOOO 
iOinrHrH0004C0k004C0C0t-04Or)ic-OrHrHHi<04C0040000t-kO04C-t-t-kOC000T)i04 00 
rH CO 04 rH 00 CO C- 04 O 04 04 * CO Hf rH CO rH 00 04 CO 04 04 rH CO O CO ’rji rH rti 04 rH 04 04 rH 

CO rH CO 04 rH rH 04 CO 04 04 04 rH 04 04 

393038 

398336 

5298 

lion «° ‘ON 

^uara^jBd 

-3Q 9UIOH ut BJBioqog 

CO CD 04 Hf 00 CD rf tH 00 CO 00 1 04 O co Tf CO O O rf CO CO 00 co VO 00 kO 00 04 C-Hf i CO 1 i 1 

U5 04 CO 04 kO 04 04 Hf rH 04 CO 04 i 04 04 O rH tr- ri< CO CO 04 CO t- CO ^ rH ® 00 00 04 rH i rji 1 1 1 

H T* CO rH 00 04 rH CO CO CO CO 1 40 CO 04 rf rH O 04 'C 04 rH 00 t- C74 04 CO t- rH tJI 1 III 

^4* rH CO rH 04 rH 04 '04 rH CO rH 04 rH rH 04 CO 1 III 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

43197 

44093 

896 

XOiMCOrJiOiOrfCDOCDOi i00^C'CDD^OhDhN‘ODH iOHHO i i i i i 

lOOlOWHt-HHCOXrfCO ta><D<M''fCOt'-rHOOO>T*<iOiOa>^H 'COrHDlCO 1 1 1 1 l 

COM rf HTf 00 rH <M CO ' t- M CO t> ^ rf i rf CO CD 1 i i i 1 

rH M • rH 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

l 1 1 1 1 1 1 

12271 

17115 

4844 

looqos 

UIBjq Ul BJBlOqag' 

CDC0C0t-rH04C0C0t-t-C0rHrHOC0C0k0OrH040404rH04C0l0O00rHt-t-OrllU5 04C0'Ci< 
-H«'r}i04C0<34a404Hlii00404t-'Hi00t-Oi0O0404Ha , C0C0COOt-rHr}it-C-rH04iH'O0'3e000 
O00C-<J4k0©©rl«Tj<t-OC004COt-kj0kO0400rl<a4rH04e004e004O04C004®C000Tji04 00 

CO 04 rH CO © CD ©©00®* © CO rH 04 CO rH CO rH 00 © CO OO CO 04 00 © 04 rH 04 04 rH 

04 rneo 1 -H rHiH 04 H 04 H H H 04 

337570 

337128 

442 

sjaoijyo P UB sjaqaBaj 

Hj!©©©t-rH©04C0CO©t- ik004TfC-k004HC©kacO®04©rHt-kOOOC-04©0400®rH 
vO 00 04trrHkO00®C0t-©kO iO4©O4O4r)<CO©04rHC-©C0©©©©rH©O4©C4kffl00O4 
© CO 04 rH t- © © C-rHTilHf ' 04 © 04 ^ rH © 04 © 04 © h* © 04 04 CO Hj< 04 CO rH 04 rH 

CO rH CO rH 04 rH rH 04 j 04 04 04 04 04 rH 04 04 

40672 

40730 

58 

sjooqas ABpuns jo ‘ON 

10©kD©©H*©®04COHe®04©©©04®©C-iO©©©©H#©04®kOt-rH©©©L0rH 

05 cq ^ rH rr K5 © © CO rH 00 *© 04 rH © rH © 04 rH-H< rl< CO rH CO CO 04 CO 

rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH i-H rH 04 rH 

3011 

2992 

19 

Xppog pty 

s.uatuoAV ui sjaquiaj^ 

04 04 rH 04 00 00 H* rH © 04 C- OO 1 © CO H)I rH 00 OOCO t~ ©© C- Hjl 00 »©©© rH 00 '04 1 1 1 

©©COCO©t'-00®©CO0CO4 !COCO , Hj'0404©©©OOCO©0-OOCO©kOOOrHrH It- i 1 1 

rH CO CO 00 t— rH © tC © © 1 © rH T}< Tf 04 © rH CO CO 04 ©© ®«© ®© © 1 i-H 1 1 1 

CO rH rf 04 04 rH 04 04 1 rf rH rH ® T) 1 CO 04 rH rH 04 1 III 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 till 

1 1 1 1 1 

57102 

54681 

2421 

sapapog 

pty s.aarao'AV "on 

JiCOi-HOOOOOOTfCOtr-rHTfCO iHO^^W^TfNOOO^OOOJH^ ' rt 1 1-1 i i i 

O 00 00 aiiftOOM lOO^HWHlO T-l CO rH 00 CO ^-1 a> rH 1 CD ?D M l rH l 1 1 

rH 1 iH rH 1 till 

J 1 I 1 1 1 

1 1 y 1 III 

1 1 1 1 I 1 

1626 

1520 

106 


H 04 cOHi , ©®t-oo©©rH o4 'co r©©t-oo©©rH04cor©®t-oo©©»H04eor©©t- 
rHrHrHrHrHi-HrHrHrHrH04C4N04C404 04 0404C4COCOCOCOeOCOCOeO 


9280 


















































































STATISTICS FOR 1923 OF THE CHURCH OF THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


easod 

-Jnj -g *S l«»0T JOj 

©©©©©©t-©eoeOrH© tt-03rHt-HfrH©rH©os©©©Tj'eoe’'3eoeo©H}<©rHrHrH 

©"'^©■'ft-Tf'-'f©©^©© icocO'ft-*rocco©©©caLO©'>*©-a , coio<x>e':©eaLO©<N 

rH © © eo i-h rH © t-© © eo © < © eo © eo © © •e 1 eo c- eo rH eo t- oo © © uo t- © t~©c»rH 

t- Hf © rH tH rji © 03 © © © t- © 03 03 © ■«* 03 © rH © © « 03 

eo 03© 03 rH© >03 i* 03CO rH HH 

Vi I 

I 

1 

t 

1 

1 

$417088 

393412 

23676 

aSBuosanj AS.3JN joj prej 

$3515 

755 

1225 

1200 

6868 

6006 

1260 

4076 

400 

5518 

8281 

1895 

293 

1120 

3996 

130 

1275 

4455 

25 

3773 

4578 

^ O 1 CO 

Tf co i 

CDOS « CO 

O *-H 1 rH 

CO <£> 1 

tfr 1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

qaanqQ M.ajq joj prej 

t-© i©©©t-CO©eOt-t- ' rH © © i © r< ieO['-©JOO3©i-t-H l ©©t-0Oe3O3-H , 'H , t- 
03© 1 © © © t- © © © rH © I©©© 1 ■*f © i 03 © © © t-© 03 © t--0* © © ©-O'© © t- 

03© i © eo t- © © e- -«* © © i©©© i©eo ' © w 03 © © © © © © © © <-* eo hi< © <-h eo 

© rH 1 iH rH © © 03 © © rH Tj< 1©©rH i 1 ■'i' © 03 © t- © © if © tr- © t- 

eo 1 © rH HHHrJI 103 1 t Tf ©H^f © rH 

Vi- 1 rH 1 II 

1 III 

1 III 

1 III 

1 III 

' III 

$641517 

460429 

181088 

3q»a 

eSBuosjBj uo piuj 

00 i-H tO ' 05 03 05 10 00 lO H IHHCOOO rf Tf Tf 00 H I • ■ » 1 

C0t-(M IO0M WCi it-OOOcOHiOdOO 'tO00(M<Nt>COO3CO00 » « ' » ' 

' co rH to «oc to oo iHWHcocooincoN • » » i » 

^ rH now 1 CD C3 03 HOW rH 1tr* CC 00 t-h tO CO iiiii 

I rH » l l till! 

II 1 l till! 

II 1 1 IIIII 

II 1 1 IIIII 

II 1 1 IIIII 

II 1 1 IIIII 

$90075 

73834 

16241 

3qaa qwnqO uo pisj 

t- eo © © rH © if © © tr- © © IHH03 03OHO 1 C- © © © © if © © if © if IIIII 

’HrHt'-©O3rH©00©CO©rH 1 H W © M © © iif©©ifrH©©©t-©© 1 » 1 > 1 

©©© rH © CO if 03 © if rH CO I if © 03 © if © rH 1 ©©©©03© t- ©© rH © IIIII 

0*© 03 rH lO © © t- rH I t- CO rH © lrH»-l©rHf-©©rJ<©©03 1 1 1 1 1 

03 rH 03 iH 03 rH 1 rH 1 © rH rH « ©03© IIIII 

Vi- 1 1 IIIII 

1 1 IIIII 

1 1 IIIII 

1 1 IIIII 

1 1 IIIII 

1 1 IIIII 

$392433 

295102 

97331 

BJisde^j aSBUosauj 

© © © © © 03 rH OJ © © 03 rH 1 ©©©© Hjl rH rj< 03 Hjl ©©© rH © -^ © t-t-t- 1 > ' '© 

« rH ©©©«©©© ©© © 1 ©©© 03 ©©03©©© t- ©© Hf 03 <e* O© © 1 1 1 '© 

© t- © tr © © t- © © 1 © -e 1 b- t- rH tr- © © © rf © rH rH © rH © rH © 1 1 1 1 rH 

© ©©« CO rH 03 1© rH rH © © © Tf © ©«M 1 1 1 1 

rH i rH 1 1 1 1 

vy i iiii 

i iiii 

■ iiii 

i iiii 

■ iiii 

$85994 

81506 

4488 

saiBdaH qaanq3 

© © rH © © © © © tr- t- © © I©tH© 00 ©© 11-© © rH t-© tr-© © © © © IIIII 

© T* ©©©©©©©©© t- 1©©©©©© 1 Hf t- M rH © © Tjl © © © © © IIIII 

© rH © © © t- » © © rH © 03 1 N © T)> © rH rf 1 ©© 03 ©©©©©©© Hf © IIIII 

t- rH t- © Hjl rH©rrtr- 1 © © « rH © 1 T)< rH rH rf t- rf © © © © rH © IIIII 

© « rH rH 1© 1 © rH rH rH rH IIIII 

vy i i i i i i i 

i i iiiii 

i i iiiii 

i i iiiii 

1 1 iiiii 

1 1 IIIII 

© © i© 

© © i © 

©« i© 

©t- i© 

© © 1 rf 

© © 1 

vy i 

i 

■ 

i 

sasuadxg juaaan^ pssoq 

rHTfrH©©Tt<©«©©©© lrH©©©©rJ<©'e , ©»OHtl©rHCO©©©t-©-e , t-©©rH 

©©hji©-^©©©-^©©© i©<r>©©-e<©©t-©«©c-©©t-Hji©©rHTi<©©t'-© 

©t-CO©©t-'e , ©©a3©rH 1 rH ^1 t— © t— © © © © © © © rf t— © © © © © © ^ © © 

■e 1 © © © © Hj< © t- © © H}l 1 Tt< t- © © rH rH ©©©©©©©©© Hf © © rH 

© © © © © H-rH © 1© rH © © -f © rH rH © 

V> rH 1 

1 

$710589 

657775 

52814 


Aq peAjaoa£[ jbjoj, 


aSBUosjBj jo anpjA 


uoij«udojddy 
AxBUOiestj^ uZiajoj 
put? * auioji puaua*) 


H 

U 

Z 

W 

05 

W 

Gh 

z 

o 

o 


5DCCO)iOt-«5a)r-l'^Hir5i31iO(Ot-0000000'C'T)i<0«DtDT)<Tjit.MOO'l , >aN^Tfr^W 

c-t30t-rc-^*(Mcccoooeooicot-t>ocD<-icocoocoot-^H'-'C<J'-ic>oocDcoo«DM'j , ioco 

T)'IMCCOON«Nt-t'Ht-OCOintDT(iO»«Ci(lOiOt'OlOW®-i!C'!fiflOO!ifl«SON 

©0©©©©©Hj<©©©©rH©03©©©©H}«THtr©t-rH©©©03Hi<©rH©©t-©H|< 

© hJ< rH rH 03 © © rf © oo M * HNHHHte MNNNNWOHinoOT-iNNrHHN'f 

rH rH r-I r-I H H H f 1 rH 


IO 

i© 

rH © 

i CO 

to CO 

■ CO 

03 © 

• © 

© -f 

• rf 

© © 

1 

© © 

1 

vy 

« 


■^HHO>N^OOONIOO)W 

i(5(DH00t-05IMO<»M(DH 

NHeot-cowoifto^t-oo 

HbN ©©t- h*h»<©© 
© HH H HH 

Vi 


©©©a3©Hf©©©©©©©03rf©-e , H}leO 
ONMHOamNOWMHNOJOCOt-tOO 
©CO©C— t—©©HfCO©©rH©©t—©C'-©TP 

h* © © rH t- eo © n -*r eo in ©©e* 3 © 


CO rH 

tO 1 

Oi t> 

© > 

© © 

© < 

o t- 

CO 1 

© 

rH » 

© © 

1 

v> 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

to *"H 

i© 

© © 

• -a- 

rH rH 

i© 

rH tO 

• CO 

© © 

1 o 

rH © 

t rH 

vy 

1 

1 



C .2 u 
t q.®5 < 
C O. o 4 J 

88£bl4j££?SEft.3S2£ 

rH©{i5Tj<©©t-©©©rH©eOHji©©t-o003©rH©eo ,, 'l<©©t-©©©rHNei3Hl < ©©t- 

rHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH©©©©©©©©©©e>3roe<3e'SeOe'5eOeO 


c _ ® o « 


i! 


E • 

o 2 

■g O 

« m 

£ a 

o 

a 3 

5oa ® 
s 

,*9(10 

^ gi.S'f 
5l1n 

z-tz 


Conferences report Dollars and Cents. We use their Dollar figures and adjust the differences in Special Disbursements. 










































































































STATISTICS FOR 1923 OF THE CHURCH OF THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


eni«A*»N& ^ woooj^o^noo©© nS 


eaSBuosjsj 


anjtJA *»N 


s3utpi;ng qojnq^ 


sasodjng py joj ib}oj, 


ejBpadg 


IiS?lIPIII?PIliiPI!P!i?l«?tliiii 

« rss*r WN s ^ w ^££ 2 ^s 22 '* a5 ° Nco 


tH tH 

o 

rH 05 

ca 

50 t- 

tH 

05 H< 

■*r 

r-fCO 

VO 

CO (M 
CO CO 

w 

co 

Tf Tj< 

o 

rH O 

rH 

o t- 

CO 

tH r-l 

vc 

005 

rH 

O vC 
CO 

Tf 


c2S2SS§2§^^2J2S^^2i2l2 oooolot ’ 0 “ 5T, ' Tl ‘®’- 4 ’- |k «ootooooo 

SS^MK2SS£?2^£l t ''!2?2^2 t '* , ' HC ^ COr “ ,ooa 50cor^ooovccDtHCDoivco5oooo 

ssIslsIislSilgSiPgEsssss^sgssssssssss 

SS^ggS^ggfcg* as^^g^SS^gSgaSig^gS 

TT rH rH rH _i _c _j 


NOS 
O Oi 
<N 05 

co co 

05 00 
t- M 
t~- CD 

tH tH 

<5» 


o 


o 

VO 

oo 

<N 

o 

o 

rH 

tH 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

VC 

00 

o 

00 

VO 

05 

CD 

o 

<N 

t- 

o 

o 

o 

vC 

VC 

© 

© 

© 

CO 

05 

CO 

00 

CO 

CO 

CD 

o 

Tt< 

■** 

CO 

05 

o 

05 

CO 

tH 

o 


CO 

r—< 

Tf 

o 



rj* 

05 

-* 

t- 

05 

o 

00 

00 

Ob 

CO 

o 

00 

tH 

o 

o 

CO 

rf 

o 

O 

Tj* 

T)* 

CO 

CO 

CD 

* 

00 

CO 

oo 

CD 

Tf 

t- 

M 

rH 


o 

o 

VC 


rH 

co 

CD 

o 


05 

CO 



rH 




rH 

CO 



rH 









<y> 


















— - ~ --- ~ - —- —' w* ■■ “ l «■'■> 'j V.V* i 

r-( CO HHHifrtHNH0930i-l rH 


*2 ^ 50 2 92 10 ■'* 50 ° ''*' N ^ 10 ^ °° °° © © © ^ <£> ^ ^ © © <-' © © © © o © 

5«05C0Dlt-C0O00tOt'^D0I'^ , 'C , 5f000C0U0 0500r-(Dar-tDJC0Dlt-CODJ5OO5C005C0lOt-iO 
J2t P5 tl ,: ^ C ~ rl,t ~ W ' £>t ' c<,e0u5 ’ -,ri,u:,OTi,r *'' ,,,<:<,o ' DU,:i(:0< ^00 | M50rJ<(N^0>-i50Tj'C0 
<Jit'W'l l NH05i-iHOt*05Cat-0)<0<OOeO®T-iCOOCi30(DrtHtOOOlOON005N 1 0 
i-HQOeODJ-^CDvrOr-UODJCO'-H* i-tt-cocooieo ©iOlO'>!}<iOt-©Ti<C~ttHTl<<X>C<lC3tHCMTl' 

50 CO © rH CO tH r-l CO tH 50 COCO CO TH D1 CO 


iOT)«ojcouOT-(cO'^'t-05»HT-(eot-50t-oo'^ , 05c<icOT}'05v050oit-rHocoio^TtirH05ooio 

•<i'^<05coco<50uoeo->i't-tOcC'r-tcoco»-M»(Mt-coooO'a | iococoiocoo>oioooooot-«o 

05CDCOt-t-COQO»-lrH’-'OC-'Ot-OUOCDOeOr-IUOoOOOt-t-UOCOVOOOTj<i/5t-05t-00 

ODHN 05 HW hNOHHO^H tH -<*< UO DJ t- rH CD 00 •<!* H lO (N CO (M 

HIM j^tHtHtH* l £5 r-l ^COtJIt}! HHH 

««• •*— 


co 

CO 

<M 

05 

in 

50 


05 00 

rH 

tH VC 

CO 

VC rH 

Tf 

co co 

rH 

co •** 

•r 

t- 00 

05 

05 tH 
H rH 

rH 

CO 00 

VC 

05 CD 

co 

05 05 

o 

VC O 

VC 

rH 00 

CO 

CO 00 
CD VC 
€*0- 

rt< 

Tt< O 

Tf 

t"» rH 


■=* co 

CO 

co o 

CO 

t- CO 

VC 

t* co 

rH 


aouBJadmaj, .103 

rH rH • CD CO CD 00 *000005 1 05 VC VC O • 05 i 1tH CD 05 tH rH t- 1 CD rH 05 1 1 1 1 1 

Hb- 1 rf CO CD 1 Tf VC CO 05 > 05 CO 05 Tf i CD i iHt>HOi^iC i 05 CD o CO i f i i i 

005 ' CD rH 05 1 CO 05 o rH 1 rH 05 rH I 1 1 05 O at CD 105 05 t- rH i 1 1 1 1 

05 1 rH 05 1 rH rH *05 « ' • 05 rH rH 1 1 1 1 1 1 

f/0- 1 i l ill 1 1 1 i i i 

1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 

05 tH 1 00 

CO Tt« i o 

O rH 1 rH 

05 CD itH 

rH 05 1 

60- i 

l 

I 

I 

i 

saSBUtrqdio puB earnon 

Tf tH CO rH 00 05 rH 05 rf O ^ rH 1 rH 05 CO O O tH VC 05 rH vC CD O rt< Tp CO 00 CD 05 O 1 1 1 1 » 

CO CD CD CO VC O rH o 05 VC 03 05 i 00 00 05 05 CO CO 05 vC 05 rf rH 05 05 05 ^ rj< CO VC i i i f i 

05 rH O5O5vCrHtHVCrH05 ' CD rH CO 05 VC t^rHrHCDrf05rHVCO5»>^05 » ' ' 1 1 

05 CC CO rH ^ rH CO 1 ^ CO CO O CO rH vC rH 1 1 1 1 1 

tfy- rH 1 rH rH rH 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 f ! 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

$94367 

75007 

19360 

;a3png 

aauaioAauag i«aaua£) 

rH vC CD CO Tf CD 05 rH CD co 05 o VC ^ CD 00 CD CO rJ< 05 CD vC tH ^ rr 00 IH O 05 ^D 00 I i 1 i i 

tHC00505t-05^01C005^rHVC05 05rHC0^OHj<O00rH05T^rHC005O505tHtH ! 1 1 1 1 

T* CD VC 00 ^ O CD CO 05 tH VC rH 05 05 rH rH T* CO 05 00 tH CO 05 tH rH O tH rf CO tH 00 05 1 1 1 1 1 

CO tH 05 rH 05 VC rf 05 05 tH VC * Hf tH CO rH CD VC r* -Tjl tH CO CO 00 05 00 Tf 05 VC 1 1 1 1 1 

CD CO tH rH CO rH co ^ rH CD CO CO CO rH rH 05 1 1 1 1 1 

oo- 1 1 1 1 l 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

I 1 1 1 1 

05 05 iO 

tH CD ' 05 

rH O ' 00 

O CO 105 

CO VC 1 05 

CD CD I 

30- i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

*v -n ’AV J<>3 

05 VC CO 00 05 05 Ti< 00 rH tH 00 rH 1 00 ^ CO ^ tH rH H VC O 05 00 O ^ ^ *H CO 05 O rH 1 < Tf 1 1 

tH uo 05 00 05 O CO 00 05 rj« ^ O I vC VC T}< 05 rH rH CO CO CO CD tH 00 05 rH 05 00 CO 00 rH 1 ' tH 1 1 

T}» 05 ^ o vC 05 05 CO O t- VC 1 05 VC CD tH CO h* c 0 05 05 CO CD O CD 05 00 00 « « i i 

COCO tH CO 05 CD rH 05 VC ' 05 05 H CO VC 05 ^ rH ^ i 1 i i 

rH 05 1 rH rH 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 till 

1 till 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 till 

$127387 

132574 

5187 

f Oi t» CO U5 t- 00 <7> O «£> as iX , aOiOONCOMOO'J l O'#0<CO)0>0000 1 1 1 1 i 

(Ji t- t- t- 03 fO to rj! t- «D O r lOiOMH^tO 03 U5 O ^5 t—r U5 U? O t~ CO t}< i t l i i 

iO IG rtOM IftTft-Oi 1 CO 1-1 r-l C<J '-O r-l rH to O 00 S73 03 lO r-l 1 1 1 1 1 

rH tH rH 1 rH H H H H lllll 

^ 1 ‘lllll 

1 lllll 

1 lllll 

1 lllll 

$19214 

16985 

2229 

^°AV 

'3 *0 iBjauao joj 

Tf CD 05 rH Tf Tf rH Tf 05 tH 00 i O vC CO CD Tf 05 H O h* O vC oO 05 00 o CO CD tH 1 100 i i 

HHTf050rfOrfHCCVCiOJ i 05 ^ rH tn vC CD 05 vC 05 05 05 C5 CO CD 03 ^ 1 'CO ' « 

rf VC VC 05 05t^rHOrHTfCD i H tH H W H O VCC0C0CDL'-rHO5C0^O5tHVC i i 1 i 

r}* rHVCrH 05 rH rH CO ' CO rH Tf rH 05 05 rH 05 rH II II 

^ 1 1 1 1 1 

1 II II 

1 1111 

1 till 

1 1 1 1 1 

$47687 

43745 

3942 

•^nj pue 
•jf Stnpnput sasuad 
-*3 '3 *0 1*003 J 03 

’I-ioM 'S 'S l^-Miiao joj 

VC CD O t- CD rH CD ' 05 05 0- CO 1 05 vC 05 CO rH CO 05 rH CD CD O 05 C5 05 rH ^ 05 05 05 lllll 

CD rH 05 CO O rH 1 rH CD CD CD 1 00 CO 05 Tf 05 CO 05 Tj* CO r-* O vC CD CO rH «** O 00 ^ i i i i i 

CO rH hHb- I 05 rf 05 1 o CO rH rH ^ VC 05 05 rH CO CD VC rH lllll 

rH CO 1 H IH Tj*rH lllll 

1 1 lllll 

I 1 lllll 

1 1 lllll 

1 I lllll 

$20996 

18479 

2517 

i-icoeo^i'5rtcot-oo050r^coeoT)'iocc>t-ooo50r^coeoTj'50«Dt-ooo50-^coeO'0‘50cot- 

| r-ti-ir-ir-iT-iTHr-ir-irHi-icjcocoeococococoeocicoeoeococoeoeoeo 




































































796 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


APPENDICES 

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE UNITED BRETHREN AND THE 
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH BETWEEN 1809 AND 1814 

The letters following are given as they occur in stitched 
manuscript placed within the conference record. All are 
recorded in the English language. All except the last letter and 
a fragment of a letter signed by Beverly Waugh were published 
in Lawrence's History, the most of them also in Spayth’s 
History, strict exactness, however, not being observed. Some 
pages of the manuscript record of the letters have been lost 
since the letters were incorporated in Lawrence's History. 
The parts lost are supplied from Lawrence's History as follows: 
The letter signed by Christian Newcomer, dated May 25, 1811, 
beginning with the words “number yet among us"; the letter 
signed by Nicholas Snethen, dated March 26, 1812; the letter 
signed by Christian Newcomer, dated May 13, 1812. In view 
of their value for reference, and also in view of the fact that 
some inaccuracies in connection with the letters as heretofore 
published have crept in, the series is here given entire. 

AN INTERCHANGE OF LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE GERMAN 

UNITED BRETHREN AND THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
TRULY RECORDED AS FOLLOWS: 

To the Conference of the United Brethren. 

Very dear Brethren: We, the members of the Baltimore Conference, 
being deeply sensible of the great utility of union among Christian ministers 
and members (as far as circumstances will permit) in carrying on the work 
of God and promoting the interest of the Redeemer’s kingdom, viewing 
you as friends and brethren engaged in the same glorious work with our¬ 
selves, have, after mature deliberation, thought proper to offer to you the 
following terms, in order to establish a closer and more permanent union 
among us. 

1. We think it advisable for your own good and prosperity that each 
minister or preacher who is acknowledged by the United Brethren should 
receive from your conference a regular license, which may introduce them 
to our pulpits and privileges and prevent impositions, as there are many 
who profess to be in union with you that are not acknowledged by you. 
And we would further advise that you favor each of our presiding elders with 
a list of the names of those ministers so acknowledged and licensed by you 
within the bounds of his district, that there may be no difficulties in ad- 


APPENDICES 


797 


mitting them to our privileges. And we would further observe that all our 
traveling ministers and preachers have their names printed in the minutes 
of our annual conferences, and our local ministers and preachers have 
credentials of ordination, or a written license, and we hope that you will 
admit none to your privileges calling themselves Methodist preachers but 
such as have their names on the minutes, or as are licensed as above men¬ 
tioned. 

2. As we have long experienced the utility of a Christian discipline 
to prevent immorality among our people, we would earnestly recommend 
to you to establish a strict discipline among you, which might be a “defence 
of your glory.” Our Discipline is printed in your language, and we would 
recommend it to your consideration, to adopt it, or any part of it that you 
in your wisdom may think proper, or any other form that you may judge 
best. And that under a discipline so established you make use of every 
Christian and prudential means to unite your members together in societies 
among yourselves. By these means we think your people will become 
more spiritual, and your labors be much more successful under the blessing 
of God. 

3. All those members among you who are united in such societies, or 
may hereafter be united, may be admitted to the privileges of class-meetings, 
sacraments, and love-feasts in our church, provided they have a certificate 
of their membership signed by a regularly licensed preacher of your church. 
And to prevent inconvenience, we wish you to furnish each of our preachers 
with a list of the names of all such members as may be in the bounds of 
their respective circuits, that they may know who are your members. 

In order further to establish this union, which we so much desire, we 
have given particular instructions to our presiding elders and preachers 
who have the charge of districts and circuits where the United Brethren 
live, to admit your preachers and members, as above specified, to our 
privileges, and also to leave a list of the names of your preachers and mem¬ 
bers in the bounds of their respective districts or circuits for their succes¬ 
sors, that they may have no difficulties in knowing whom you acknowl¬ 
edge as preachers or members. 

Thus, dear brethren, you may see that we sincerely wish to accommo¬ 
date you as far as we can consistent with the discipline which binds us 
together as a spiritual people. We think that we have proposed to you 
such terms of accommodation as will meet your wishes, and if carried into 
operation among you, we hope and believe a door will be opened for general 
usefulness among and with each other. We are persuaded that the great 
Head of the church will smile on us and own our labors of love, and we shall 
be blessed in seeing our children converted to God and become useful 
members of that church which they may choose. 

And now, dear brethren, we commend you and your charge to God, 
praying that the Lord may be with you, and bless you in your conference, 


798 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


and bless your honest labors to promote his glory and the interest of Christ’s 
kingdom in the world. 

We are, dear brethren, your sincere friends and brethren in Christ. 

Signed by order and in behalf of the conference. 

Francis Asbury. 

William McKendree. 

Brethren in Christ Jesus: At our conference held in Lancaster 
County, the 10th, 11th, and 12th of May, 1809, after having taken into 
serious consideration all those points concerning a close union between the 
German United Brethren and the English Methodist Episcopal Church as 
they have been proposed by an epistle from the late Baltimore Conference, 
directed unto us, as well as verbally by two of their ministers, namely, 
James Hunter and James Smith, it did appear the fundamental Christian 
doctrines as held by the two societies to be the same; and all the differences 
between the two, namely, to consist in some external church regulations. 

Truly it is to be lamented that not only in these our days, but through¬ 
out the past centuries, by the setting up and obtruding of opinions, im¬ 
mense harm hath been done, yet our conference doth not mean by their 
animadversion to hint that any umbrage was given to [it,] but mentions it as 
a matter of reflection. As to the first point proposed concerning a written 
license to be given to our preachers, we had already come to a conclusion 
about the same, but yet till now there were some of us which had not re¬ 
ceived a formally written license, but shall be supplied with it now, and 
such as might refuse it we wish to take the Christian liberty not to look 
upon them as preachers ordained of us; as we likewise shall not receive any 
English preacher as ordained of you except he hath a certificate of your 
conference. And this did appear unto us as necessary to prevent disorders 
as far as possible. As to what belongs to the second point, concerning a 
token to be given by their respective preachers, as well to the English as to 
the Germans, to such members as might desire to partake of the Lord’s 
supper at the big and quarterly meetings, for the reasons mentioned above 
we think it proper and perfectly agreeing with that order which becometh 
Christians. 

Concerning the third point, with respect to such as by an unchristian 
walk forfeit their privilege, we desire to act in uniformity with you that 
such shall remain deprived of Christian fellowship and communion as long 
as they remain impenitent and neglect to amend their ways. Thus if we 
continue not to do unto others what we would not wish done unto us, 
under the influence of grace divine we are confident that all jars shall soon 
be done away and our meeting-houses will open by themselves. Any fur¬ 
ther points to be considered will be deferred to our next conference. The 
God of peace and love, may he deign to unite us still closer in the bonds of 
love and union in this present time and throughout the eternal ages. 


APPENDICES 


799 


Be assured of our sincere love, as we are also confident to have a place 
in yours. 

Signed by Martin Boehm. 

George Adam Geeting. 
Christian Newcomer. 

To the German United Brethren. 

Dear Brethren: We hereby acknowledge the receipt of the letter 
of the conference of the United Brethren bearing date of the 10th of May, 
1809, and are pleased to observe that you are fully sensible of the pro¬ 
priety of mutual letters of recommendation, both for preachers and mem* 
bers of the two societies who may wish to participate in each other’s privi¬ 
leges. 

We most earnestly encourage you to persevere in so useful a determin¬ 
ation and give it the fullest effect, as not only the two societies, but the 
church of Christ and the cause of God in general are interested in the detec¬ 
tion of imposition among us. 

Your determination to postpone the consideration of the subject of 
discipline until your next conference makes it improper for us to resume 
that subject, presuming that you had sufficient reasons for so doing. We 
should have been highly gratified if it had been consistent with your cir¬ 
cumstances to have given a final decision on the principles of the union 
which we proposed, and which we conceive is devoutly to be desired by the 
two societies. We are thankful to find that the spirit of Christian and 
brotherly love still prevails among you toward us, and do assure you that 
we reciprocate the affection, and hope never to do to you otherwise than 
we would have you do to us, and shall continue to receive with an attention 
suitable to their importance any communications which you may deem 
proper to forward to us. 

Wishing you great peace in your own souls, and great harmony in 
your conference, and great success in your ministerial labors, we remain 
your brethren and fellow-laborers in the kingdom and patience of Christ. 

Signed in behalf of the conference, 

Joseph Toy, Secretary * 

ADDRESS TO THE GERMAN UNITED BRETHRENf 

Dearly beloved Brethren: Having received your letter, etc., etc., 
we finally agree with you to give the right hand of fellowship, to preach the 
gospel of a crucified Redeemer, and work together in spiritual peace and 
harmony to bring lost sinners home to God through repentance and holi¬ 
ness. And we further agree with you that our preaching houses of public 
worship shall be open to all your preachers who have license from you. 
Likewise, it is our earnest wish that you should open all your public preach¬ 
ing houses to all our preachers that have written license from us. We also 


*The reply of the United Brethren has not been preserved. 
|A letter Written in 1810. 



800 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


inform you that we have regulations upon record to walk by, to direct our 
preachers to keep class-meetings, or to form classes at any place they think 
proper, etc. And, lastly, we give unto you the right hand of fellowship, 
and assure you that we shall always, as much as in our power lies, do unto 
you as we wish you to do unto us. 

We also crave an interest in your prayers, and assure you that it is our 
full desire to live in as close a connection with you as the nature of the 
case will admit, to bear with each other in love, and, holding the same prin¬ 
ciples and preaching the same doctrines, we will not suffer smaller things, 
and only the shadows of religion, to separate us from each other. 

Nicholas Snethen. 

To Christian Newcomer. 

AN ADDRESS FROM THE BALTIMORE ANNUAL CONFERENCE 
TO THE UNITED BRETHREN 

Dearly beloved Brethren: We have received your affectionate 
letter with hearty thankfulness that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
the God of all peace and consolation, has inclined our hearts to unite in the 
bonds of the gospel, to walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us and given 
himself for us. We consider now, if we have not misunderstood you, that 
we are fully agreed in respect of the necessity of union and a mutual en¬ 
deavor to accomplish it. We have therefore directed and instructed all 
our presiding elders and preachers whose business it may be, to consult 
with the United Brethren in their several districts and circuits about the 
most expedient form of carrying the proposed union into effect. To our 
own forms of license and certifications, etc., we presume you can have no 
objection, as they have been of long use among us. If you have already 
a fixed form, we shall cheerfully accept it, and would only advise that if 
you have one yet to fix upon, you may bear in mind whether it will not be 
proper to be somewhat uniform in the formation of the licenses for your 
preachers and the certificates for your members; but should you see proper 
to vary in different places, our brethren are instructed to make no objec¬ 
tions on that head, but merely to seek for information and conform to your 
usage accordingly. You will please, then, dear brethren, to accept from us 
the right hand of fellowship and our assurances that all our preaching 
houses shall be open to your licensed preachers, as far as our power and 
advice may extend (for some of our houses may be under the control of 
trustees) and that our sacraments, love-feasts, and class-meetings shall be 
open to your members who apply with such form of certification as you may 
judge proper, according to our proposals sent to you from the Harrisonburg 
confe rence. 

As soon as our presiding elders and preachers return to their respective 
districts and circuits, we shall consider this union as having commenced on 
our part. But we propose to keep open an intercourse between the two 
conferences, to improve and perfect the plan as far as experience may 
furnish matter of improvement. 



UNITED BRETHREN OFFICE BUILDING, DAYTON, OHIO 



































Ilfllt*!! 


mmm 


W*1*hS .i B . 








THE OTTERBEIN PRESS BUILDING 




















































APPENDICES 


801 


We hope to hear from you at our next annual conference, and we invite 
you to exercise the fullest confidence in us in your correspondence. Having 
given you this invitation we take the same liberty. We hope you will not 
indulge for a moment a suspicion that we wish to interfere in your confer¬ 
ence and church concerns. There will constantly, no doubt, be many in 
both churches not disposed to become privileged members; none of our 
regulations can have any effect upon such. But knowing, as we both do, 
the imperfections of human nature, we cannot help foreseeing that offenses 
will come between ministers and members of the two churches who claim 
privileges. Now we think that some plan ought to be agreed upon for the 
settlement of all such difficulties. As nothing can now be done decisively, 
we beg leave to propose to you the following plan for your consideration: 

First. If any preacher or member of either church claiming to be a 
privileged preacher or member in the other shall be accused of anything 
contrary to Christian prudence or Christian conduct by the church in which 
he may be a privileged preacher or member, the accusation shall be made to 
the conference or church in which he is in regular membership, who shall 
try and judge accordingly. But in cases of this kind, if the difficulty be 
not settled according to the satisfaction of the conference or church making 
the complaint, or bringing the accusation, his brethren shall advise and 
request him to desist from the use of the privileges, and to confine himself 
to his own proper conference or church. 

Secondly. No preacher or member who shall have been excluded by 
one conference or church shall be received by the other. 

Thirdly. As often as may be convenient a messenger shall be sent with 
any letter which shall be addressed from one conference to the other, with 
instructions to explain any difficulties. 

We invited our beloved Brother Newcomer to a seat in our conference 
as your messenger, and he is doubly dear to us as the messenger of such 
joyful tidings of brotherly love from you. “How beautiful upon the moun¬ 
tains are the feet” of all the messengers of mercy and love and peace and 
good will. 

We have the happiness to inform you that we have enjoyed great 
harmony and love in our conference, and by what we can learn of the state 
of religion at present, we have many tokens of good and abundance of 
evidence that God is waiting to be gracious. 

Wishing you peace and prosperity in the kingdom and patience of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, we remain your affectionate brethren in the bonds of 
Christian fellowship. 

Joseph Toy, Secretary. 

March 27, 1811. 

AN ADDRESS FROM THE GERMAN UNITED BRETHREN TO THE 
ENGLISH METHODISTS 

Dearly beloved Brethren in Christ: We have, received your 
affectionate letter bearing date of March 27, 1811, by our brothers Borg 




802 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


and Swertzwelder, with much joy and thankfulness, seeing therein that the 
God of love has united your hearts in love and harmony with us, to unite 
more and more together in the bonds of the gospel. We are certain, 
brethren, if we walk in the light as children of the light, we shall ere long 
be of one heart and one mind. Seeing likewise the blessed fruits of our 
union together in a measure already, and the glorious prospect before us, 
we do not hesitate a moment longer to give you the right hand of Christian 
fellowship again. We have now formed our members in classes, as much as 
possible. However, there are a number yet among us who have not yet 
joined with us in this privilege, so long delayed by us. We earnestly hope 
that you will instruct your traveling preachers to bear with such as much as 
the order of your church will admit. We would further inform you that we 
have drawn up some regulations, or discipline, among us, and shall endeavor 
more and more, to put them into effect among ourselves and our members. 

Any preacher or private member expelled from your church will not be 
received by us to the fellowship of saints in Christ, and we do hope that you 
will do the same in relation to those expelled by us, at least until sufficient 
reason be found of their repentance and good fruits. 

We likewise hope that our mutual friendship and love to each other 
will be increased yet more and more, and that the intercourse, by letter and 
messengers from and to each conference, may be kept up yearly, through 
which medium difficulties may be readily adjusted, and more especially as 
such messengers or communications will be joyfully received by us and 
appreciated in the best possible way. 

And, lastly, may the God of all peace and consolation, who has united 
our hearts together in the gospel, spread his militant church, by us, from 
pole to pole, and, finally, when time is no more, make us, one and all, 
members of his church triumphant, to praise God and the Lamb forever. 
Remember us before the throne of God, is the earnest prayer of your affec¬ 
tionate brethren. Wishing you peace and prosperity in the kingdom and 
patience of our Lord Jesus Christ, we remain your affectionate brethren 
in the bonds of Christian fellowship. 

Signed by order and in behalf of the conference. 

Christian Newcomer. 

May 25, 1811. 

AN ADDRESS FROM THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CONFERENCE, ASSEMBLED 
AT LEESBURG, TO THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST* 

To the Conference of 'the United Brethren. 

Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ. Behold how good and pleasant a thing it is for brethren to 
dwell in unity. May the holy leaven leaven the whole lump. We do most 
cordially and sincerely join with you in praying that He who has united our 

♦WTiile we do not have a copy of this letter in the minutes as now preserved, there can be 
little doubt that “in Christ” was inserted by an editor just as it was inserted in a number of 
other cases. 



APPENDICES 


803 


hearts in the gospel may make us instrumental in assisting to spread his 
militant church from pole to pole, and, finally, when time is no more, 
make us, one and all, members of the church triumphant, to praise God 
and the Lamb for ever and ever. 

We have the happiness to inform you that we do not recollect when we 
had so gracious a sitting together. “Our peace surpasseth all understanding, 
and our joy is unspeakable and full of glory.” We taste unspeakable bliss. 
“The power of the Highest overshadowed us, and the glory of God is in the 
midst of us.” Hallelujah! 

We have instructed our preachers to deal very tenderly with those 
members of your church who have not fully come into our measures of 
union, as far as the rules and orders of our church will admit, hoping and 
trusting that you will still do all in your power to promote and extend the 
spirit and practice of discipline among them, it being evident that our 
mutual success depends upon our union, wherever our lines of labor come 
together. 

We agree with you in the advantage of correspondence and an inter¬ 
change of messengers. Brother Newcomer was received by us, and we have 
appointed our brothers Alfred Griffith and John Swertzwelder as mes¬ 
sengers to your next conference, with whom you may consult on any sub¬ 
ject relative to the desired object of a final and perfect harmony. 

We remain, dear brethren, your affectionate fellow-laborers in the 
bonds of peace. 

Nicholas Snethen. 

March 26, 1812. 

THE PHILADELPHIA CONFERENCE TO THE CONFERENCE OF THE GERMAN 

UNITED BRETHREN, TO MEET AT ANTIETAM, WASHINGTON COUNTY, 
STATE OF MARYLAND 

The Philadelphia Conference to the United German Brethren, Greeting. 

Dearly beloved Brethren: We have been made acquainted with 
the friendly correspondence that has taken place between you and the Bal¬ 
timore Conference, tending to a happy union, and being informed by your 
messenger, Christian Newcomer, that it is your wish to enter into a like 
friendly correspondence with us, we therefore hasten to inform you that we 
are willing most cordially to embrace you as brethren in the kingdom and 
patience of Jesus Christ, and are ready to enter into the strictest union with 
you that the peculiar circumstances of the two societies will admit of, and 
have accordingly appointed two of our members, William Fox and William 
Foulks, to meet you at your next conference, to aid in the accomplishment 
of this desired object. 

It was, dear brethren, the prayer of Christ, your Lord and ours, that 
his people might be one, and that, for the best of all purposes, that is, 
that they might be perfected in one. We are, dear brethren, yours in the 
bonds of a pure and peaceful gospel. 


804 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Signed by order and in behalf of the Philadelphia Conference at the 
Annual meeting, in Philadelphia, 25th April, 1812. 

William S. Fisher, Secretary. 

AN ADDRESS TO THE CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 

ASSEMBLED IN BALTIMORE, FROM THE UNITED BRETHREN CHURCH* 

Dearly beloved Brethren: The members of the conference of the 
United Brethren assembled at George Adam Geeting’s, with the greatest 
satisfaction mention the receipt of your address from Leesburg. Our souls 
have been truly refreshed, particularly when we received the news of love, 
uniting our kindred souls. We will adopt the language of the royal psalmist 
with you: “ ’Tis good and pleasant for brethren to dwell together in 
unity.” We do cordially and sincerely pray that Jehovah may make us 
individually instrumental in spreading his blessed cause, and extending his 
militant church from the rivers to the ends of the earth. We rejoice with 
you that the power of the Lord was in your midst; our hearts also burned 
with love, while consulting on the welfare of Zion. 

We are truly thankful for the delicacy and tenderness intimated in 
your letter, as touching those members of our church that may not as yet 
be divested of certain peculiarities. But we humbly hope that the mists 
will ere long, through the effulgence of gospel day, be dispersed from every 
mind. We have in many places succeeded in forming class-meetings and 
extending discipline, and, as far as prudence shall dictate, we will pursue. 

An interchange of messengers and correspondence will still be deemed 
a favor. Brothers A. Griffith and J. Swertzwelder were thankfully received 
by us, with whom we had the happiness to consult on the much desired 
subject of permanent peace and harmony. 

Brothers G. A. Geeting and C. Newcomer were instructed as messen¬ 
gers to you. Finally, brethren, may the God of love and peace unite our 
hearts and efforts in the indissoluble bonds of Jesus’ love, is the prayer^of 
your fellow-laborers in the blessed gospel of peace. 

Signed in behalf and by consent of the conference. 

Christian Newcomer. 

Washington County, Maryland, May 13, 1812. 

AN ADDRESS FROM THE CONFERENCE OF THE GERMAN 
UNITED BRETHREN 

To the Methodist Episcopal Church, Philadelphia Conference, Greeting. 

Dearly beloved Brethren: We received your friendly address 
with much pleasure. We exult to hear you are ready to enter into terms of 
union with us, as our brethren of the Baltimore Conference have done, and 
pray that it may terminate in as happy an union, and have no doubt but it 
will, if you pursue the same charitable and friendly steps towards us as 
they have taken. We wish, dear brethren, ever to do unto you as we would 

*The word “church” quite certainly should be omitted. The minutes as now preserved 
do not contain this letter. 



APPENDICES 


805 


be done by. May the Lord unite our hearts in love and help us to pull 
together in the yoke of Christ, that we may be as true yoke-fellows indeed, 
and may the kingdom of God our Saviour be mightily established in the 
earth by our united efforts. Brethren, pray for us. We have appointed 
our brethren Christian Smith and David Snyder as messengers to your 
next conference, with whom you may consult on any subject leading towards 
our contemplated union. 

We remain, dear brethren, yours in the bonds of the peaceful gospel. 

Signed by order. George A. Geeting. 

May 15, 1812. 

[FRAGMENT FROM THE BALTIMORE CONFERENCE] 
but hath furnished us with complete means for this great work, to wit, 
oracles of God, an inexhaustible fountain of truth, and the unction of the 
Holy Spirit of grace to enable us to perform every good word and work. 
Pure doctrinal truth and gospel discipline dispel darkness from the mind, 
and correct the errors of the heart and life, and, through the efficacy of the 
Spirit, perfect us in the love of God. We acknowledge the receipt of your 
affectionate address by our respected brethren, C. Newcomer and C. Crum, 
and rejoice to hear of your success in forming classes and extending disci¬ 
pline; the closer the union of Christians can be drawn, the more readily 
they yield to gospel discipline, and we still recommend a prudent persever¬ 
ance in this good work, knowing from long and happy experience that your 
labor will not be in vain in the Lord. 

We shall rejoice to embrace every opportunity of consulting together 
openly and freely on the most proper means to promote peace and perfect 
harmony. In order thereto we have appointed our much respected brethren 
Robert Birch and James McCann as bearers of this address to your respect¬ 
able body, whom we recommend to you as persons able and ready to give 
any information on the subject of peace and union that you may require. 

Finally, brethren, we recommend you to God and the word of his 
grace, praying that his peace and love may unite all our souls in Christ 
Jesus, and that we may all see the pleasure of the Lord prospering in our 
hands, till they that sow and they that reap shall meet and rejoice together 
in the kingdom of God for ever and ever. 

Signed in behalf and at the request of the Baltimore Annual Conference, 
held in the city of Baltimore, March 30, 1813. 

Beverly Waugh, Secretary. 

ADDRESS FROM THE PHILADELPHIA CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL CHURCH TO THE GERMAN CONFERENCE OF 
UNITED BRETHREN 

Dearly beloved Brethren: Your friendly address by your brother 
and ours and your messenger, Christian Smith, we received with pleasure. 
We beg you to be assured of our continued regard for you, and cordial desire 
of Christian union and communion, as far as may be consistent with the 


806 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


order and discipline of our respective churches. Our doctrines are fixed and 
established; our discipline is binding upon [us] by the authority of our 
General Conference, and we have long experienced and proved the great 
advantage of such regulations; consequently to these in our church com¬ 
munion and fellowship we feel ourselves bound by the most sacred obliga¬ 
tions to have an especial regard. And might we not, brethren, recommend 
them to your consideration, that you may “prove all things, and hold fast 
that which is good?” We have appointed our brethren William Hunter 
and H. Boehm to present to you this address, and to assure you that your 
messengers and communications will always be welcome to us. We are 
pleased to find, by the reports from different and distant places, and happy 
to be able to inform you, that our blessed Redeemer is still carrying on the 
work of spiritual peace and reconciliation, notwithstanding the commo¬ 
tions and convulsions in the world, and hope the time is not far distant in 
which the human race shall be united as the common workmanship of the 
common Creator’s hands and the common purchase of the common Sav¬ 
iour’s blood. We pray our gracious and holy Lord abundantly to bless you 
and incline your hearts to supplicate for us before his throne. May you be 
divinely assisted in all your deliberations, and see the Lord’s pleasure 
abundantly prospering in your hands to the glory of [our] God and your 
God, through Jesus Christ, your Lord and ours. 

Signed in behalf of the conference. 

William S. Fisher, Secretary. 

Philadelphia, 1st May, 1813. 

To the Baltimore Annual Conference, to be Held in the City of Baltimore, 

March, 181 4 . 

Dearly beloved Brethren: At this important period, while our 
national tranquillity is disturbed with the desolations of war, we rejoice to 
find that there is yet prevailing among you a growing disposition to spread 
the odors of our Redeemer’s name among the people of the United States of 
America. 

We received your affectionate address by the hands of your messengers, 
our beloved brethren, R. Birch and J. McCann, and cordially unite with 
you in praying that our united efforts may be more and more successful in 
spreading the victorious kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. And brethren, 
this we believe we will not fail to accomplish if we endeavor to lay aside all 
national prejudices and betake ourselves to more solemn fasting, humilia¬ 
tion, and prayer, and in spirit, conversation, and public labor more ardently 
endeavor to raise up a people for the Lord God of hosts, in the midst of the 
earth. Mingled as our hearers and members are throughout this widely- 
extended country, we are the more convinced that one spiritual interest 
should exist among us, and lead us all on to the exercise of more powerful 
exertions to fill the world with the knowledge of our gracious and benevolent 
God. 


APPENDICES 


807 


We firmly believe with you, brethren, that pure doctrinal truth and 
gospel discipline dispel darkness from the mind, and correct the errors of 
the heart and life, and through the efficacy of the Spirit perfect us in the 
love oi God. Endeavoring, as we are, to become united in establishing a 
real gospel discipline among our people, we have it in lovely contemplation 
soon to have printed and circulated among our members a system of rules, 
which, though they may appear in some respects imperfect, yet may serve 
for the commencement of a form of government for our people, which may 
in process of time be improved to such a state of perfection as may be to the 
benefit and happiness of future generations. But as we cannot at present 
inform you in this letter concerning the general form of the Discipline we 
contemplate publishing, the bearers of this letter to your conference, our 
beloved brethren Christian Newcomer and Valentine Baulus, will be fully 
qualified, and shall have power, to give you any information that may be 
necessary concerning the progress in discipline we shall have made during 
the labors of the present year. 

Desiring to continue a friendly correspondence with you by letter, 
brethren, we wish you all success in the holy labors of the gospel, hoping 
that we shall have an interest in your prayers and good wishes, while at the 
same time, we assure you, we will endeavor not to fail to pray to the God of 
all grace for you, and wish you all possible success in the good work of the 
Lord. 

Signed in behalf and by order of the conference of the United Brethren 
in Christ held in Lancaster County, May 6, 1813. 

Christian Smith, Secretary. 

To the United Brethren Assembled in Conference. 

Beloved Brethren: By this we acknowledge the receipt of your 
letter, by the hands of your messengers, our brethren, C. Newcomer and 
Baulus. We are pleased to find that our common interest actuates us in 
our efforts to establish a permanent union, and that so far the good resulting 
justifies the measure. Furthermore, we rejoice that you are progressing in 
the work of organization and discipline. This we are ever willing to help 
forward, being convinced that all real union and friendship must be founded 
in truth and order. To this end, brethren, we must keep in view the items 
specified in a former letter from this conference, as terms of union. Being 
thus harmonious in sentiment and interest, we think it unnecessary to 
continue the ceremony of annual letters, etc., believing [it] sufficient to 
leave the door of friendly intercourse open, that, if in the progress of time 
and experience anything of importance should occur, there may be a free 
communication. Thus impressed with the importance of cultivating 
brotherly love, we join with you in praying that the Divine Spirit may 
accompany us in our mutual endeavors to promote the general cause of 
truth and virtue. 

Signed in behalf of the conference. 

March 22, 1814. 


Beverly Waugh, Secretary. 


808 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


CHURCH POLITY* 

The Church of the United Brethren in Christ is not an off-shoot from 
any other denomination. It did not arise from differences in doctrine, for 
it presents no radically new doctrines of any kind. Its theology is Ar- 
minian. It enjoins the ordinances presented by the Scriptures and followed 
by the Christian churches in general. Its founders united to emphasize the 
need of consecration of soul to God, and of personal “religious certainty,’’ 
and this has been its spirit. Its polity may be said to be composite. It 
combines in an evenly balanced way episcopal, congregational and pres- 
byterial, or representative elements. In its administration, it is distin¬ 
guished as a body in which the power is almost equally divided between 
the ministry and the people. All officers hold their places by consent of 
the members, expressed by vote either directly or by representatives. The 
members choose the local church officers, who form the majority of each 
official board, and the delegates to each General Conference. The quarterly 
conference elects a lay delegate to the annual conference. The annual 
conference chooses its superintendent and other officers. The General 
Conference elects all the Bishops, general officers, and boards of the Church. 

But one order of ministers is recognized—that of elder. Bishops and 
presiding elders are chosen from among the elders simply as superintendents, 
the former for four years and the latter for one year. 

In supplying the congregations with ministers, the “itinerant system” 
is the adopted method. All pastors are subject to settlement and change 
as determined by a committee consisting of the Bishop and the superinten¬ 
dent or superintendents at each annual conference. A minister may re¬ 
main upon a charge without limit of time, being subject, however, to 
annual reappointment by the conference. 

In form of worship the Church seeks directness and simplicity. It has 
no liturgy, and does not force uniformity in its service, each congregation 
deciding the method for itself. 

The meetings of the Church include the regular Sabbath preaching of 
God’s Word, the weekly prayer meetings, the Sunday school, the Christian 
Endeavor society, with such other features as each congregation may 
determine. Four times during the year a “quarterly meeting” is held on 
each charge, at which time the general business of the charge is transacted, 
a communion service frequently being held upon the Sabbath. Official 
meetings are held monthly. 

POSITION ON MORAL LIFE 

A natural result of the principles which led to the formation of the 
Church has been to require of its members devotion to Christ, simplicity 

♦The two articles that follow are taken, with some adaptations, from the Year Book of 
1921. They give so clearly and concisely the characteristics of the Church that they cannot 
fail to interest and instruct. 



APPENDICES 


809 


of faith, purity of life, and uprightness of conduct. Upon all questions of 
morality the position of the Church has always been decided. No com¬ 
promise with evil has been countenanced. 

The law of the Church forbids the sale or use of intoxicating liquor by 
its members; and the renting of property to liquor dealers, or the signing of 
a petition favoring them, is considered immoral. The members always 
have been found active in every movement for the growth of temperance. 
Its members are almost a unit in favoring the entire annihilation of the 
liquor traffic in the nation, and its leaders are active in their opposition to 
intemperance in every form. Against the use of tobacco the sentiment is 
strong. 

The Church believes in the unity of human interests, and that difficul¬ 
ties between capital and labor can be settled only on the basis of intimate 
knowledge of Jesus Christ, and the application of the principles of the 
gospel to everyday business life. 

As to the Sabbath, the denomination believes that the law of the 
Sabbath is perpetual. It, therefore, opposes all forms of needless Sunday 
labor, and is pledged to do, by precept and example, all that can be done to 
prevent Sabbath desecration. 

Believing that it is the right of every child to have such an education 
as will fit him for good citizenship, the Church is unequivocally in favor of 
the American public schools. 

Only such amusements are thought proper to the Christian as will 
tend to re-create him physically, mentally and morally. Whatever will 
interfere with his highest growth in any of these lines should not be in¬ 
dulged in. 

The Church has always been decided in its opposition to such secret 
societies as seemed to infringe upon the rights of those outside their organi¬ 
zation, and to be injurious to Christian character. Its laws have always 
had this end in view. 

The authority of the civil government is recognized, and the members 
are enjoined to obey its laws; and while disapproving warfare, and favoring 
international arbitration, the Church acknowledges the obligation of every 
citizen to protect and preserve the government in time of treason and 
invasion. 

Respecting divorce and all social evils the Church has always taken 
firm ground. 


MEMBERSHIP AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 

The members of the Church consist of those who profess faith in Jesus 
Christ and are received in open congregation, opportunity having been 
given for objections to their reception. The members profess faith in the 
Bible and in Jesus Christ as a personal Savior, and promise to lead a Godly 
life, to contribute liberally to the support of the gospel, and to be subject 
to the rules of the Church. 


810 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Persons who are sincerely seeking the Lord may be received under the 
watch care of the Church, but are not reported as members. 

The duties of members of the Church include the observance of the 
ordinances of God’s house, attendance at the meetings, the encouragement 
of the Sunday school, keeping the Sabbath day, and living peaceably among 
their fellows, etc. Young people are expected to belong to the Young 
People’s societies. 

Persons guilty of misdemeanors or of violations of church rules may, 
after due admonition and trial, be expelled by a vote of the local church. 

The ministry of the Church consists of men and women called of God 
and recognized by the Church as such, after having been recommended by 
the local church for quarterly conference license, and in turn recommended 
by the quarterly conference to the annual conference. On reception in the 
annual conference, ministers pursue a course of study either in Bonebrake 
Seminary or under the direction of the conference, and after a probation of 
four years and the passing of the proper examinations are eligible for or¬ 
dination. 

Ministers in the active itinerancy are those who offer themselves for 
active service under the direction of the annual conference. Those for 
whom the conference and the Church are unable to furnish ministerial 
work are called supernumerary itinerants. Superannuated itinerants are 
those who from age or physical infirmities are unable to pursue the regular 
work of the ministry. 

The charges are united into conference districts called Annual Con¬ 
ferences , of which there are now thirty-two, besides the five Foreign Mis¬ 
sionary conferences. The annual conferences are grouped into districts 
called Bishop's Districts, each under the supervision of a Bishop. 

Local church officers consist of class leaders, class stewards, treasurers, 
trustees, and where desired, of deaconesses and other officers. 

Class leaders have a variety of duties looking to the spiritual develop¬ 
ment of the members, through visiting of the sick and other activities. 

The local church may have one or more than one class steward, v/hose 
duty it is to look after the contributions for the support of the ministry and 
of the church, and keep an account of the money received and report the 
same to the treasurer. 

A financial secretary is elected by the quarterly conference to keep an 
account of the moneys of both the local church and the general benevo¬ 
lences. 

Two treasurers may be elected by the quarterly conference, one to 
handle the benevolence funds and the other the local church funds. A 
committee of finance has charge of the canvassing of the church for the funds 
necessary for local expenses and general benevolences. 

The trustees are the legal representatives of the church and are chosen 
by the quarterly conference, in accordance with the laws of the state in 


APPENDICES 


811 


which the church is located. They have charge of all church property and 
control the building of churches and parsonages. 

A church may have one or more officers to collect the funds for the 
poor, under the direction of the official board. A church clerk may be 
elected, to serve as the pastor’s clerical assistant. 

The business of each congregation is transacted by the official board. 
The official board is composed of the pastor, all properly recognized preach¬ 
ers, deaconesses, leaders, stewards, treasurers, trustees of property, presi¬ 
dents of Women’s Aid societies, Women’s Missionary associations, Young 
People’s societies, Brotherhoods, superintendents of Sunday schools, Junior 
and Intermediate societies, all treasurers of Women’s Aid societies, Women’s 
Missionary societies, Young People’s societies, Sunday schools, Brother¬ 
hoods, and Otterbein Guilds. This body is the business board of the 
church and submits a record of its acts to the quarterly conference. 

In the administration of the work of the denomination, the Quarterly 
Conference is immediately above the local church and is closely related to 
the official board, being composed of the members of the official board. 
Where a charge includes more than one local church, the quarterly con¬ 
ference includes the official members of all the churches. 

The quarterly conference meets four times a year and reviews the work 
of the pastor and the heads of departments. It grants licenses to quarterly 
conference preachers, renews such licenses, and after one or more years’ 
standing may recommend the granting of licenses by the annual conference. 
It hears complaints and appeals, and provides for a committee trial. The 
quarterly conference is presided over by the conference superintendent, or 
some one elected as chairman protem. 

The Annual Conference consists of licensed preachers and one lay 
delegate from each charge. This gives the laymen active participation in 
the control of the church. The annual conference is presided over by the 
Bishop, or by some one elected as temporary presiding officer. 

The entire denomination is unified through the General Conference, 
which meets every four years on the second Thursday in May. This body 
consists of an equal number of ministers and laymen chosen by vote of the 
members during the month of November preceding its session. 

The General Conference reviews the work of the general officers, and 
the administration of each annual conference is subject to review. Changes 
in the Church Discipline are made by this body and the general church 
officers are elected by it. Thus the General Conference gives expression 
to the thought and will of the Church and becomes the exponent of its faith 
and spirit. 

Deaconesses are women, who, led of the Spirit devote themselves to 
Christian service, being licensed by the church for such special service. 

The local church , or congregation, is the basis of the organization of the 
church. A charge may consist of one local church or more than one. 


812 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN C HRIST 


PORTRAITS OF OTTERBEIN 

The portrait of Otterbein by Jarvis reached Dayton too late to be 
described on the proper page. Efforts have been made for forty years to 
secure this portrait for the Church. Until lately it could not be purchased 
at any price. When a price was named it was $1,000, and the price finally 
paid was $400. At an early day the historical society of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church secured two portraits of Otterbein, the one representing 
him as wearing a cap, and the other was represented by a lithograph widely 
distributed through the Church by George Wagoner in 1859. The original 
stone was destroyed in connection with the fire that destroyed Pike’s opera 
house in Cincinnati. Many copies of a smaller lithograph, representing some¬ 
what closely the original lithograph, were procured and sold through the 
Church by Mr. Wagoner. The frontispiece in this history is made from 
the original large lithograph. This picture represents Otterbein in the 
strength of middle life, and because of this will always be prized by 
the Church. A third portrait, which is now in the possession of the Church, 
bears on the back of the canvas the following inscription: “Rev’d William 
Otterbein, (Pastor of the Evangelical Reformed Church, Baltimore) Painted 
in October, 1810, when he was in the 85th year of his age. (From the life 
by Jarvis.)” Jarvis was a prominent artist of Baltimore and the portrait 
may well be called the Jarvis portrait. A larger proportion of portraits were 
painted a hundred years ago, because present mechanical means of making 
pictures were not then known. Much care and effort have been used in 
securing the best possible half-tone engraving of the Jarvis portrait, as 
found facing page 96 of this history. The writer made a special trip to 
Leesburg, Virginia, thirty-seven years ago to see this portrait, and has 
much satisfaction in being able to include in this history a representation 
of the same. While in the Church History by Lawrence and the Life of 
Otterbein the Jarvis portrait was the basis for the pictures of Otterbein, 
it is believed that in the picture herein given fuller justice is done to the 
portrait. 

The portrait was painted for Peter Hoffman one of Otterbein’s elders 
or class leaders. There is a painting of Peter Hoffman in which he is shown 
with lifted hand, representing him, as the tradition ran, as leading in a 
class meeting. As his financial resources were small, his son John, a man 
of means, had the portrait of Otterbein made for him. On his death the 
portrait passed to John, and on his death, it passed to his brother Jacob, 
and on the death of Jacob, it passed to his son Otterbein, and on the death 
of Otterbein, it passed to his brother George, and from George it passed to 
his two daughters now living in Washington, D. C., from whom it was ob¬ 
tained for the Church. If arrangements now contemplated are carried out 
the original portrait will be housed and cared for by Bonebrake Theological 
Seminary. 


INDEX 


Adams, T. D., 751 
Africa, conference in, 592 

mission in, 465, 587, 596, 600 
African uprising, 594 
Albert academy, 597 
Albright, I. H., 693 
Albright, Jacob, 134 
Allen, S. B., 642, 739 
Antietam church, 110 
Antietam meetings, 165 
Allegheny conference, 418, 693 
prominent members of, 695 
Altman, Nehemiah, 565 
Ambrose, L. D., 738 
Ambrose, Matthias, 738 
Ambrose, William, 395 
American Missionary association, 591, 592 
Annual conferences, 351, 679 
time of organization, 789 
Antrim, Jacob, 376 
Appendices, 796 
Arbogast, W. H., 737 
Arkansas Valley conference, 765 
Arnold, Valentine, 38 
Asbury, 115, 144, 168, 181, 235, 243 
ordination of, 144 
Assurance, 61 
Auglaize conference, 715 
Aurandt, 179 
Ayers, A. R., 689 
Baber, E. R., 763 
Bachtel, J., 370, 685 
Baish, H. H., 693 
Baker, Henry, 156 
Baker Home, 676 
Baker, J. L., 420 
Baldwin, J. G., 701 

Baltimore church property, 116, 118, 121 

Baltimore, Otterbein’s call to, 111 

Baltzell, Isaiah, 681, 693 

Bangs, Nathan, quoted, 255 

Banks, Louis Albert, 555 

Baptism, infant, 438 

Barnaby, H. T., 732 

Bartlett, Norman B., 637 

Batdorf, G. D., 647 

Baulus, Jacob, 162, 333, 713 

Beardshear, William, 627 

Becker, C. L., 177 


Bell, William, M., 534, 730 
Benedum, George, 162, 308 
Benevolent fund, 355, 448 
Benevolent homes, 673 
Bennehoff, I. 703 
Berg, 41 

Berger, Christian, 294 
Berger, Daniel, 571, 572 
Bertch, G. E. 764 
Biddle, Alexander, 697, 714 
Bierman, E. Benjamin, 633 
Bigler, Regina, 603 
Billheimer, J. K., 589, 593 
Billheimer, Mrs. A. L., 590 
Bishops, first election of, 185, 262 
Bishops, table giving, 783 
Bishops, by whom ordained, 791 
Blackburn, W. M., quoted, 204 
Blair, J., 744 
Blair, William, 744 
Blake, L. O., 772 
Blinn, Miss Vera, 599 
Board of administration, 547, 665 
Board of control, 661 
Board of education, 663 
Board of church trustees, 677 
Boehm chapel, 211 
Boehm, Henry, 185 
Boehm, Martin, meets Otterbein, 88 
Boehm, family, 95 
converted, 97 
life and ministry, 207 
relations to the Methodists, 210 
Boggess, J. W., 737 
Bonebrake brothers, 377 
Bonebrake, Daniel, 711 
Bonebrake, Henry, 390 
Bonebrake, J. M., 377, 648 
Bonebrake church, 307 
Bonebrake Theological Seminary, 645 
Bonnet’s schoolhouse, 295 
Bookwalter, Lewis, 624, 627 
Booth, B. F., 594, 698 
Bright, John C., 586 
Buchwalter, I. L., 751, 754 
Brane, C. I. B., 567, 689 
Breden, J., 721 
Brewbaker, C. W., 654 
Brooke, C. M., 649 


813 



814 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Brooke, F., 627 
Brown, William, 349 
Buckley, J. M., quoted, 5 
Bufkin, L. H., 753 
Burkert, C. J., 709 
Burtner, E. E., 712 
Burtner, Henry, 368 
Burtner, L. O., 594 
Burtner, William, 683 
Burton. R. P., 731 
Byrd, F. R. S., 747 
Cadman, William, 702 
Cain, I. N., 594 
Caldwell, I. E., 608 
Caldwell, W. P., 767, 768 
California conference, 775 
Camp-meetings, 363 
Cardwell, W. A., 758 
Calvinism, 49, 64, 66, 127 
Carter. T. C., 536 
Cascade conference, 774 
Castle, Nicholas, 476, 527, 730 
Centennial of 1874, 469 
of 1901, 522 

Central Illinois conference, 736, 738 
Central Ohio conference, 711 
Chambersburg, Pa., church, 353 
Chickamauga conference, 782 
Childress, W. L., 683 
China, conference in, 604 
mission in, 602 
missionaries in, 603, 604 
Chittenden, L. S., 717 
Church as an institution, 271 
Church-erection, 464, 551, 616 
Churches, early, 364, 371 
Church, first north of the Ohio, 305 
Church stage reached, 275, 277 
Church union, efforts toward, with Methodist 
Protestants, Congregationalists and other 
bodies, 528, 538, 541, 547 
Cincinnati churches, 707 
Clark, Leander, 629 
Clark, Rufus, training school, 59? 

Classes formed, 357 
Clippinger, A. R., 553, 709 
Clippinger, W. G., 624, 647 
Cogan, Jay M., 701 
Colaborers of Otterbein, 95 
Colestock, Z. A., 673, 688 
Colleges and academies, 619 
Colorado conference, 769 
Columbia river conference, 774 
Columbus, O., churches, 710 
Commission, church, 491 
members of, 494 
work of, 494 


approval of work, 497 
Conferences, annual. 351, 679 
Conferences, early, of 1789, 155, 158, 262 
of 1791, 159, 262 
of 1800,183, 262 
of 1801, 186 
of 1802,188 
of 1803,191 
of 1804, 193 
of 1805, 193 
of 1806, 276 
of 1812, 278 
of 1813, 281 
of 1814, 285 
of 1817 to 1830,352 

Conferences, general, see general conferences 
Conferences, Miami, of 1810, 299 
of 1812, 300 
of 1813, 302 
of 1814, 313 

Confession of faith of 1814, 282 
of 1815. 318 
of 1889, 497' 

Congregation of God in the Spirit, 63 
Connor, T. J., 437, 717, 719, 772 
Connett, J. B., 739 
Constitution of 1837, 406 
of 1841. 410 
of 1889, 499 
Cook Joseph, 174 
Cook, I. P.. 212 
Coons, John, 417 
Cornell, L. S., 769 

Correspondence between the United Brethren 
and the Methodist Episcopal church, 796, 
807 

Conversion, 61 
Wesley on, 62 
Crider, Christian, 688 
Crider, Martin, 110, 156, 357 
Cowden, Robert, 654 
Crouse. Isaac, 653, 714 
Crum, Christian, 161, 357 
Crum, Henry, 161 
Curtis, E. W., 752 
Dakota conference, 769 
Dashields, George, 241 
Davis, James, 393, 735 
Davis, Josiah, 392, 728 
Davis, Lewis, 3S7, 440, 622, 646 
Davis, William, 391, 728 
Dayton, Ohio, churches, 708 
Deal, H., 753 
Deaver, G. W., 711 

Decisions of courts, as to Baltimore church, 
117, 118 

as to separation in 1889, 513 


INDEX 


815 


Deever, O. T., 659 

Degmeier, Julius, 448 

DeLong, D. I)., 633 

Denham, John, 381, 390, 719, 734, 748 

Depravity question, 438, 446 

DesMoines conference, 750 

Dick, W. B.. 694 

Dickson, John, 466, 688 

Dickson, J. H., 711 

Dickson, W. A., 689 

Dillenburg, 28 

Discipline, efforts to secure, 281, 315 
Discontinued conferences, 781 
Discontinued schools, 641 
Dodds, John, 709 
Dohner, H. B., 693 
Dosh, J. M., 720, 766 
Dresbach, George, 560 
Dresbach, Jonathan, 560 
Drucks family, 218 
Drury, A. W., 647 
Drury, M. R„ 566, 568, 627 
Drury, P. W., 608 
Dubbs, J. H., 10, 6 
Duncan, W. L., 752 
Dunham, J., 736 
Dutton, J. H., 709 
East DesMoines conference, 752 
East German conference, 692 
East Nebraska conference, 768 
East Ohio conference, 696 
East Pennsylvania conference, 690 
Eastern conference, 682 
Editors, tables for, 784, 785 
Edmonds, Matt, 762 
Education, 427, 619 
board of, 663 
theological, 645 

Educational institutions, table of, 788 
Edwards, David, 397, 433 
Edwards, Jonathan, 174 
Eldred, S. L., 742 

Elkhorn and Dakota conference, 768 

Emerson, G. W., 752 

Engle, J. R-, 693 

English preachers, 373 

Erb, Jacob, 414 

Erie conference, 701 

Ernst, John, 156 

Ervin, S. B., 637 

Etter, John W., 647 

Evangel, the, 574, 599 

Evangelical Association, correspondence with, 
548 

Evangelical movement, scope of, 253 
Asbury’s testimony regarding, 255 
testimony of first Discipline, 260 


Evangelism, 427 

department of, 552, 669 
Evans, J. R., 736, 757, 764 
Evinger, Henry, 734 
Everhart, John, 747, 753 
Everhart, Lorenz, 260 
Faber, J. C., 112 
Faith, 61 

Farmer, Aaron, 390 
Fanaticism, 175 
Faust, S. D., 647 
Fetterhoff, J., 729 
Field, J. L.. 736, 778 
Field, L., 738 

Flickinger, D. K., 492, 588, 592 
Florida conference, 747 
Floyd, Halleck, 518 
Foster, J. T., 686 
Fout, H. H„ 542, 649 
Fout, J. E , 649 
Fox river conference, 741, 743 
Frederick, Md., Otterbein at, 77 
Freedman, mission for, 613 
Freemasonry, 344, 358, 380, 432 
Fries, W. O., 573, 714 
Fritz, G., 780 
Froeliche Botschafter, 569 
Fulkerson, J. W„ 682, 754 
Fulton, J. S„ 696 
Funk, John T., quoted, 105 
Funk, W. R.. 577, 581 
Funkhouser, A. P., 682 
Funkhouser, Daniel, 691 
Funkhouser, G. A., 646 
Gabel, H. S., 616. 692 
Garst, Henry, 624, 709 
Geeting, George A., sketch of, 107 
ordination of, 109 
expulsion of, 176 
character and labors, 213 
death of, 214 

Geeting meeting-house, 110 
General conferences, time and place of meet¬ 
ing, 788 

General conferences, first, 1815, 313, 315 
second, 1817, 322 
third, 1821, 335 
fourth, 1825, 342 
fifth, 1829, 344 
sixth, 1833, 346 
seventh, 1837, 405 
eighth, 1841, 409 
ninth, 1845, 423 
tenth, 1849, 431 
eleventh, 1853, 435 
twelfth, 1857, 444 
thirteenth, 1861, 449 


816 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


fourteenth, 1865, 455 
fifteenth, 1869, 463 
sixteenth, 1873, 468 
seventeenth,1877, 472 
eighteenth, 1881, 479 
nineteenth, 1885, 489 
twentieth, 1889, 496 
twenty-first, 1893, 508 
twenty-second, 1897, 512 
twenty-third, 1901, 519 
twenty-fourth, 1905, 526 
twenty-fifth, 1909, 538 
twenty-sixth, 1913, 540 
twenty-seventh, 1917, 546 
twenty-eighth, 1921, 550 
Georgia conference, 747 
German periodicals, 567 
Germantown, Ohio, church, 307, 706 
Germany, mission in, 600 
Geschaeftige, Martha, 569 
Givens, W. M., 739 
Glossbrenner, J. J., 366, 429 
Good, I. J., 6, 175 
Goodin, J., 750 
Gossard, D. G., 634 
Griffith, James, 392, 739 
Griffith, W. R., 624 
Griffith’s Annals, 118, , 

Grime, J. E., 731 
Grosh, Christopher, 157 
Grove, L. S., 753, 

Groves, J. A., 731 
Guitner, John E., 624 
Hadley, Oliver, 590 
Hadley, Mrs. O., 590, 591 
Hager, L. L., 702 

Hagerstown conference, see Virginia conference 
Hamilton, Sir William, quoted, 61 , 

Hamilton, T. M., 739 
Hammond, Lucian H., 633 
Hanby, B. R., 625 
Hanby, William, 397, 430 
Haney, John, 369, 754 
Harbaugh, Henry, 6 
Harbaugh, Leonard, 157 
Harbaugh, T. J., 714 
Harford, Mrs. L. R., 599 
Harris, J. H., 711 

Harrisburg conference, see Pennsylvania con¬ 
ference 

Harrisburg, Pa., churches, 693 
Harvey, D. M., 769 
Hastings, William, 395 
Hauts, Anthony, 134 
Hawkins, J. A., 726, 737 
Haywood, John, 624 
Heidelberg catechism, 30, 126 


Heisel, C. E., 770 
Henop, Frederick, 134 
Helfenstein, Dr., 172 
Hendel, William, Jr., 60 
Hendel, William, Sr., 133 
Hendershot, 766, 770 
Herr, John, 104 
Herre, Simon, 156 
Hershey, Abraham, 362 
Hershey, Christian, 382 
Hershey, John, 162 
Hershey, J. M., 370, 729 
Hicks, J. W., 715 
Hildt, John, 116, 703 

Hildt’s testimony in regard to Otterbein, 116 
Historical outline, 789 
Historical society, 677 
Hitt, R. A., 711 
Hobson. J. T., 721 
Hoffman, Miss Lizzie, 598 
Hoffman, Joseph, 341 
Hoffman, Peter, 246 
Hoke, J., 689 
Holland, church of, 51 
Holbrook, Ira, 752, 770 
Hollingsworth papers, 209, 255 
Home, frontier and foreign missions, 435 
home and frontier, 583, 611 
Africa, 587 
Germany, 600 
China, 602 
Japan, 606 
Porto Rico, 607 
Philippines, 609 
Honline, M. A., 647 
Hoobler, John, 393, 727 
Hott, G. P., 682 
Hough, S. S., 596, 666 
Howard, A. T., 545, 647 
Howe, J. W., 682 
Huber, Samuel, 352 
Huffman, G. M., 760, 762 
Huffman, N. H., 607 
Hulitt, John, 712 
Illinois conference, 734 
Independent journalism, 575 
Indiana, beginnings in, 309 
Indiana Central college, 639 
presidents of, 639 
Indiana conference, 383, 717 
Indianapolis convention, 724 
Intemperance, 232 

Intoxicating beverages, 364, 338, 339, 340, 433 
Iowa conference, 747 
Isaac Long’s barn, 88 
Japan, conference in, 607 
mission in, 606 


INDEX 


817 


Jones, W. M., 757 

Jones, W. O., 636, 768 

Joyce, Bishop, I. W., 555 

Kansas conference, 758 

Keiser, A. A., 733 

Keister, George, 647 

Keister, Solomon, 696 

Kemp, John, 648 

Kemp, Lewis, 299 

Kemp, Peter, 184 

Kendall, J. S., 666, 701 

Kenoyer, Frederick, 389, 735 

Kenoyer, J., 735, 773 

Kenoyer, J. A., 736 

Kentucky, beginnings in, 312, 719 

Kentucky conference, 743 

Kephart, Cyrus J., 544 

Kephart, E. B., 481, 527, 627 

Kephart, I. L., 566, 567 

Keppel, Mark, 778 

Kessinger, D. B., 731 

Kessler, J., 363, 691 

King, J. A. F., 738 

Knight, J5 M., 746 

Krack, John, 368 

Kreider, A. S., 693 

Kretzinger, I., 736 

Kretzinger, S., 760 

Kumler, D. C., 588 

Kumler, Henry, Jr., 415, 766 

Kumler, Henry, Sr., 321, 343 

Kumler, S. E., 709 

Kurtz, Benjamin, 174, 181, 243 

Kurtz, C. W., 709 

Kurtz, J. D., 240, 243 

Lambert, G. A., 726 

Lampe, 38 

Lancaster, Otterbein at, 54 
Landis, J. P., 646, 659 
Landmark history, 7 
Lane university, 637 
Lawrence, John, 10, 7, 565, 567 
Lay representation in annual conferences 
authorized, 473 
made mandatory, 504 

Lay representation in General Conference 
opposed, 450, 464 
bishops divided on method, 470 
incorporated in 1889, 500 
lay and ministerial representation made 
equal in 1901, 521 
Leander Clark college, 626 
Lebanon Valley college, 631 
Lee, Stephen, 713, 732 
Lee, P. B., 765 
Lehman, Adam, 156 
LeRoy family, 83 


License of David Snyder, 188 
License of H. Weidner, 141 
Light, Ezekiel, 780 
Light family, 362, 691 
Light, Felix, 266, 358 
Light, John, 402 
Lillibridge, Stephen, 402 
Lilly, J. W., 714 
Lischy, J., 87 

Litigation over church property, 513 

Long, Isaac, 88, 101 

Long, Michael, 402, 714 

Lopp, John, 718 

Lorenz, E. S., 633 

Lorenz, Edward, 571, 780 

Louisiana conference, 782 

Lower, J. W., 731 

Lower Wabash conference, 739 

Lowery, D. D., 693 

Lurton, Judge, decision of, 536 

Luttrell, J. L., 715 

Lyter, J. A., 693 

Macklin, G. P., 709 

Magazine literature, 574 

Markwood, Jacob, 370, 453 

Martyrs in Africa, 595 

Maryland conference, 688 

Massachusetts conference, 713, 781 

Mathers, William, 714 

Mathews, G. M., 524, 709 

Maumee conference, 704 

Mayer, Abraham, 162 

McCormick, W. H., 769 

McDonald, G. E., 773 

McFadden, Thomas, 624 

McGrew, L. A., 595 

McKee, C. U., 762, 763 

McKee, William, 709, 527 

McLaughlin, M. O., 636 

McNamar, John, 373 

Meeting at Isaac Long’s, 88, 89, 101 

Mennonites, 52, 95, 103 

Methodists, 143 

close relations with, 168, 201, 212, 295 
Methodist-Protestants, proposed union with, 

345 

Miami conference, 298, 371, 703 

Michigan conference, 731 

Miller. D. R., 649, 714 

Miller, family, 715 

Miller, George, 420, 750 

Miller, George, of Des Moines, 752, 753 

Miller, Mrs. L. K., 599, 624 

Miller seminary, 605 

Mills, J. S., 509 

Mills, S., 739 

Minnesota conference, 754 


818 THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Missionary work, 435 

Missions, foreign, 438, 527, 584, 596 

Missions, home, 527, 583, 596, 611, 614 

Missouri conference, 755 

Mittendorf, William, 569, 570, 780 

Montana conference, 771 

Moore, A. A., 701 

Montgomery, Joshua, 396, 711 

Morgan, John, 390, 725 

Mountain Messenger, 560 

Mount Pleasant, 316 

Mount Pleasant church, 293, 295 

Mount Pleasant college, 625 

Muhlenberg, 50 

Mumma, M. W., 609 

Muskingum conference, 322, 328, 696, 698 
Mysticism, 175 
Nassau, 27 

Nebraska conference, 766 
Neidig, John, 160 
Neosho conference, 764 
Nevin, J. W., 172 
New England mission, 713 
Newcomer, Christian, 149 
description of, 152 
journeys, 297, 382 
death, 361 

Journal quoted, 162, 149, 196, 292 
Newgent, A. J., 746 
New Lights, 101, 706 
New Mexico conference, 770 
Newspapers, religious, 559 
Nickey, G .G., 742 
North Iowa conference, 751, 758 
North Michigan conference, 733 
North Nebraska conference, 768 
North Ohio conference, 716 
North Texas conference, 770 
Northwest Kansas conference, 763 
Oberlin, Pa., church, 364 
Objective Christianity, 64 
Objective securities, 65 
Ohio, beginnings in, 297 
Ohio German conference, 778 
Olevianus, 39, 61 
Oklahoma conference, 770 
Ontario conference, 781 
Ordination of Otterbein, 42 

of Newcomer, Hoffman and Schaffer, 237 
Ordination of bishops, 323 
Oregon conference, 772 
Osage conference, 757, 761, 764 
Otterbein, John Daniel, 29 
Otterbein, Philip William, birth and early 
years, 28 

Otterbein family, 32, 34 
school at Herborn, 36 


teacher and pastor, 42 
ordination, 42 
call to America, 46 
at Lancaster, 54 
spiritual crisis, 67 
at Tulpehocken, 67 
at Frederick, 77 
marriage, 83 
at York, 87 

meeting with Boehm, 88 
visit to Germany, 92 
his colaborers, 95 
called to Baltimore, 111 
his church in Baltimore, 121 
rules of, 124 

at conferences, 155, 159, 183, 186, 188, 191, 
193 

elected bishop, 185, 262 
letters on conversion, assurance and sancti¬ 
fication, 226, the millenium, 228, to a cousin, 
229, to an intemperate man, 231, a sermon 
sketch, 233 
incidents, 217 
his will, 242 

personal appearance, 244, 245 
portraits, of, 246, 812 
books, 234 
funeral, 240 

Encomiums by Asbury, 181, 235, 242, 243 
by Benjamin Kurtz, 243 
answers to Asbury’s questions, 249 
Otterbein College, 620 
presidents of, 624 
Otterbein home, 674 
Our Bible teacher, 572 
Overmiller, J. R., 771 
Overton, V. W., 736 
Owen, Alexander, 683 
Owen, J. W., 573 
Oyler, L. O., 731 
Palatinate, 52 

Parent Missionary Society, 436 
Parker, C. S., 731 
Parker, W. F., 731 
Parkersburg conference, 683 
Parrett, R. J., 731 
Parsons, J. B., 726 
Paul, S. W., 746 
Pension bureau, 552, 671 
Perkins, W. L., 737 
Perks, T. W., 766 
Perry, J. W., 685 
Pershing, J. H., 695 
Pfrimmer, J. G., 159, 309 
Philippines, mission in, 609 
Phillippi. J. M., 566, 668, 737 
Philomath college, 635 


INDEX 


819 


Pietism, 39, 135 
Pietistic associations, 137 
Pilgrim, C. E., 733 
Pitman, J. S., 777 
Plummer, F. Berry, 689 
Preacher, the itinerant, 421 
Printing establishment, 559 
Circleville, at, 560 
Dayton, at, 562 

Editors, 564, 565, 569, 571, 784, 785 
financial growth, 577 
office building, 578, 579 
publishing agents, 577, 579, 784 
Pro rata representation, 408, 471, 473 
measure of granted in 1877, 480 
incorporated in 1889, 500, 504 
further changes, 521, 528 
Quarterly Review, 675 
Quincy orphanage and home, 673 
Quinn’s Journal, 206 
Raber, W. B., 688 
Ranke, quoted, 205 
Rau, John Eberhard, 38 
Recommendations of Otterbein, 46 
Reese, W. S., 636 
Reformed church, 171 
Religion, leading types of, 64 
Religious societies, 62 
Religious Telescope, 565 
Religious movement, 253 
Ressler, J. B., 694, 711 
Revivals, note on, 175 
Revision movement, 487 
Rhinehart, William R., 367 
Rigor, G. W. M.. 693 
Rimel, George B., 370 
Richards, J. H. 743 
Richardson, W. W., 723 
Rike, D. L., 709 
Ritter, Jacob, 362, 419 
River Brethren, 102, 103 
Roby, U. M., 701 
Roberts, J. T., 726 
Ross, St. Clair, 736, 769 
Rock River conference, 738 
Rules of 1814, 283 
Rules of Baltimore church, 124 
Ruebush, John, 680, 745 
Ruebush, J. H., 683 
Runkle, J. W., 154 
Russel, John, 428, 632, 645 
Ryan, Ira B.. 748 
Ryland, William, 238 
Sabbath school association, 456 
officers of, 787 
Sage, W. S., 592, 714 
Saginaw conference, 473 


St. Joseph conference, 727 
Sand, J. A., 691 
Sanders, T. J., 624 
Sandusky circuit, 333 
Sandusky conference, 399, 712 
Schaffer, Frederick, 110, 156 
Schell, W. E., 636, 664 
Schlatter, Michael, 45 
Schlotterbeck, C. A., 770 
Schramm, J. H., 38 
Schwimley, A., 753 

Schwope, Benedict, 112, 115, 135, 256, 312 

Scioto conference, 379, 393, 710 

Secret societies, 448, 450, 462, 465, 742 

Sellers, A. A., 749 

Seneff, D. R., 737, 739 

Senseny, Peter, 209 

Settle, J. W., 722 

Schaeffer, H. C.. 778 

Shakers, 674 

Shambaugh, Adam, 386 

Shambaugh, Adam (of Iowa), 649 

Shambaugh, John, 629 

Sexton, Mrs. Lydia, 425 

Shannon, J. E., 669, 726 

Shauck, John A., 718 

Shenandoah institute, 640 

Shindledecker, A., 715, 716 

Showers, J. B., 647 

Showers, R. S., 703 

Shuck, Daniel, 451, 718 

Shupe, H. F., 574, 659 

Shuey, J. G., 740 

Shuey, W. J., 577, 579, 588 

Shuey, W. R., 739 

Sickafoose, George, 731 

Siddall, A. C., 616, 714 

Simons, J., 731 

Sitman, J. R., 362, 419 

Slavery, 337 

Sloane, Israel, 775, 776 

Smith, Jacob C., 688 

Smith, John Christian, 362 

Smith, R. A., 747 

Smith, W. C., 739 

Snep, H. A., 729 

Snyder, David, 193 

Snyder, John, 321 

Snyder, J. H., 762, 765 

Snyder, S. S., 758, 760 

Snyder, W. E., 722, 552 

Sources, 6, 10 

Southeast Ohio conference, 379, 393, 706 
Southwest Kansas conference, 765 
Southwestern Missouri conference, 757 
Sowers, T. N., 577 
Spangler, John, 159 


820 


THE UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST 


Spanish American work, 771 
Spayth, Henry, 6, 10, 321 
Speck, D., 694 
Spener, Philip J., 39, 731, 35 
Sprinkle, D. W., 701 
Spyker, T. D., 737, 739 
Stahl, L. W„ 694 
Stahlschmidt, J. C., 71, 72, 133 
Stanley, W. E., 739 
Stearn, C. T., 689 
Statistics, 445, 554, 792, 795 
Statton, A. B., 689 
Statton, George, 680 
Statton, I. K„ 680, 751 
Steiner, Conrad, 174 

Stewardship and finance, officers of, 787, 788 
Stine, G. L., 772 
Stover, D., 723 
Strawbridge, R., 135, 144 
Streich, C., 780 
Strickler, D., 692 
Sunday schools, 651 
Sunday school board, 456 
Sunday school literature, 571 
Sutton, S., 751 
Swain, J. L., 709 
Taylor, George L., 248 
Temperance legislation, 338, 433 
Tennants, the, 179 
Tennessee conference, 745 
Terrel, Josiah, 735, 755 
Testerman, F. M., 762 
Thomas, John, 696 
Thompson, H. A., 573, 624 
Thorn, C. A., 736 
Tibbetts, M. L., 754 
Time limit in pastorate, 508 
Titus, W. S„ 732 
Tobey, W. O., 471 
Todd family, 721 
Tri-church council, 530 
Troxel, Abraham, 157, 256, 294 
Troup, Christian, 747 
Troyer, Daniel, 320 
Trueblood, H. W., 737 
Tryon, Sager, 701 
Tulpehocken, Otterbein at, 67 
Union, a closer with the Methodists, 144 
Union Biblical (Bonebrake) seminary, 465 
United Brethren church, organization of, 183, 
262 

departments of, 559 
growth in membership, 788 
incorporation of, 340, 508 
names of, 265 

polity and characteristics, 808 
statistics, 792-795 


United Brethren church (old constitution), 517 
United Brethren Review, 574 
United Brethren publishing house, see printing 
establishment 

United enlistment movement, 666 
United ministers, 137 
Unity Magazine, 574 
Unsectarian, 266 
Upper Wabash conference, 739 
Vandemark, E., 396 
Vannice, A. P., 768 
Vardaman, J. T., 723 
Virginia conference, 360, 365, 679 
Virginia preachers, 88, 101 
Virginia Telescope, 681 
Vitringa, 38 

Wabash conference, 389, 735 
Wabash settlement, 386, 727 
Wagner, A. J., 712 
Wagner, Daniel, 131 
Walker, N. A., 736 
Walla Walla conference, 774 
Ward, Henry, 627 
Ward family, 721 
Warner, Ira D., 701 
Warner, Z., 593, 681, 685 
Washinger, W. H., 548, 689 
Washington, Pa., church, 294 
Watchword, 574 
Weaver, Jonathan, 457, 699 
Weaver, Solomon, 627, 637, 762 
Weber, W. A.. 647 
Weekley, W. M., 532 
Weidner, H., 155 
license of, 141 
Weimer, Jacob, 135 
Wenrich, D., 750, 764 
Wertz, S., 724 
Wesley, John, 73, 143 
West, R. N., 593, 600 
West Des Moines conference, 753 
West Kansas conference, 762 
West Nebraska conference, 768 
West Virginia conference, 683 
West Tennessee conference, 746 
Western Pennsylvania, 292 
Western Reserve conference, 393, 696, 698 
Westfield college, 642 
Whitcom, Francis, 393 
White, R. J., 703 
White river conference, 722 
Whitefield, George, 99, 143 
Whitney, C., 615, 701 
Widdoes, H. W., 609 
Wilberforce, D. F., 591 
Will of Otterbein, 242 
Wimsett, A., 734 


INDEX 


821 


Williams, J. A., 590 
Williams, R. E., 751 
Williamson, W. W., 701 
Wilmore, A. C., 725 
Winters, Thomas, 178, 307 
Wisconsin conference, 740 
Withdrawal in 1889, 503 
Women, license and ordination of, 424 
Women’s Missionary Association, 538, 597, 
602, 609, 614 
officers of, 786, 787 
Wright, A. E., 738 


Wright, Milton, 474 
Wright, W. H., 746 
York, Otterbein at, 87 
York college, 636 

Young People’s Christian Union, 509 
changed to Christian Endeavor, 659 
officers of, 787 

Zacharias, Daniel, 78, 182, 244 
Zeller, Andrew, 298, 340 
Ziegler, S. G., 553, 689 
Zion’s Advocate, 381, 560 






















































































































































































































































































































































* 












































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































' / 





% 





































































